Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT

British Subjects (Evacuation and Assistance)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why British consular representatives in Port Said allowed the troopship "Empire Fowey" to leave Port Said without a full load of passengers on or about 13th November when there were British subjects waiting to leave Egypt who had applied for assistance.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Douglas Dodds-Parker): On 13th November there were very few British subjects wishing at that moment to leave Port Said. The majority of British subjects had expressed a desire to leave only if and when the Allied Forces withdrew. Some passengers who were ready to leave were despatched by the sea transport officer. A few whose final destination had not been decided on 13th November have since been evacuated.

Mr. Swingler: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there were British citizens, some of whom were Maltese, who had applied to leave and go to the United Kingdom? There were, I am told, more than a hundred places on this ship unfilled. How was it that these citizens who had applied and who wished to leave Egypt because of the tension were not given places on the ship?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: The hon. Gentleman is quite correct. There were a few non-repatriable Maltese who were already anxious to leave by 13th November, and while there were places on the troopship it was not known to Her Majesty's Consul where the Maltese could be accommodated if they were evacuated, as a

decision had not been come to at that time. Her Majesty's Consul rightly declined to arrange their evacuation at that stage. They have since been given all facilities for evacuation.

Mr. Swingler: Were not these Maltese in possession of British passports, and were they not British subjects? Had they not applied to go to the United Kingdom? Why were they not afforded facilities to do so? Why were they denied the right to board the ship? Why were they not entitled, as British subjects, to the same assistance as citizens of United Kingdom origin?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Because, as has been explained before, a final decision as to their destination had not been arrived at. It was only between 13th November and 30th November that that decision was arrived at. All Maltese who were not going to be repatriated to Malta have been or are being brought to this country.

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why British consular representatives in Port Said, in dealing with applications for assistance, have been discriminating between British subjects of United Kingdom origin and British subjects of Maltese origin.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Her Majesty's Consul in Port Said has not discriminated between British subjects of United Kingdom origin and British subjects of Maltese origin either as regards the provision of relief or as regards evacuation from Port Said. All British subjects of Maltese origin who wished to leave Port Said have in fact been evacuated and—except for a few who were admitted to Malta—brought to the United Kingdom.

Mr. Swingler: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that reply is inaccurate, and that his hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary has virtually admitted, in a letter to me a week ago, that there was discrimination? Is it not a fact that there were Maltese, who are British subjects, who had applied to go to the United Kingdom and were refused the right to board a ship that was leaving for the United Kingdom, whereas citizens of United Kingdom origin were given facilities and assistance to do so? Was that not discrimination?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: No, Sir, I cannot accept that. As I have pointed out, arrangements were made where possible to repatriate Maltese, and others, to their home of origin. If they were not repatriable, in this instance to Malta, they have been brought to the United Kingdom.

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what instructions were sent to British consular representatives in Port Said about granting assistance to British subjects who wished to leave Egypt after the commencement of the bombing of Egyptian airfields.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: The Foreign Office was unable to communicate with Her Majesty's Consul in Port Said between 31st October, before there was any bombing of Egyptian airfields, and the allied occupation of Port Said, after which time there was no urgent necessity for British subjects to leave that part of Egypt. On 1st December, by the time it was clear that the Allied Forces would withdraw from Port Said, and that therefore the evacuation of British subjetcs would be desirable, Her Majesty's Consul was authorised to give any necessary assistance to all British subjects who wished to leave Port Said. All British subjects who wished to leave were, in fact, transported from Port Said to Cyprus on 11th December, and the majority of them have now been brought from Cyprus to the United Kingdom.

Mr. Swingler: Does not the hon. Gentleman regard it as very wrong that British citizens—I have quoted a case to his Department—who were compelled to leave Egypt at this point, owing to the tension, without any resources whatsoever, and who had to leave their possessions to come to this country, should within 48 hours of arrival in this country —and when they were destitute and in distress—be presented with a bill for £65 for their passage on the ship? Was not that a very bad piece of diplomacy and a disgraceful act on the part of the authorities concerned?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I cannot accept that—

Mr. Swingler: But I have quoted a case.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: All arrangements possible have been made by the Home Secretary and the Anglo-Egyptian Aid Society to help these people as they arrived.

Mr. Wigg: Is it not a fact that British subjects in Egypt who want protection will conceal the fact that they are British subjects?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: Will my hon. Friend realise that this matter is disturbing the public conscience of this country? Will he do all in his power to impress on the Home Secretary and other authorities responsible that these British nationals should be properly looked after in this country now that they are here?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I can assure the House that my right hon. and learned Friend is doing what is required, as he himself has announced to the House.

Miss Vickers: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government will consider allocating a sum of money to the Swiss Government for the relief, through the Swiss Legation in Cairo, of the many British subjects still living in Egypt.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: The Swiss special representative in Egypt has already been given authority to make relief payments to any British subjects there who need them. Funds for this purpose are remitted by Her Majesty's Government to the Swiss Government as required. It would not be practicable to allocate a set sum for the purpose.

Miss Vickers: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he consider giving them extra money for extra personnel, and also empowering them to rent sonic accommodation where the British subjects who do not wish to live in Egypt can remain under some form of protection?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: We are in contact with the Swiss authorities on these points the whole time. I will certainly look into the suggestions which my hon. Friend has made.

Mrs. Castle: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what arrangements are being made for the speedy evacuation of British civilians from Egypt.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: The Swiss special representative in Egypt has been instructed, and has been given the necessary funds, to arrange for the evacuation of British civilians in Egypt who wish to return to their native countries. He has been asked to report whether scheduled sea and air services are now sufficient to remove, without undue delay, all British subjects who wish to leave. If they are not, Her Majesty's Government will endeavour to arrange extra transport.

Mrs. Castle: Is the Minister aware that I have sent his Department a letter which I received from a constituent just back from Egypt, who points out that the transport and financial difficulties have not been solved? I am wondering what steps Her Majesty's Government have taken to let British civilians in Egypt—many of whom are under house confinement—know that the services of the Swiss Government are available, and to make sure that they can get in touch with the Swiss authorities.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: We have done all that has been possible to bring these points to the attention of British subjects in Egypt. There have been reports that Egyptians have not been delivering mail to British subjects in that country. I shall willingly look into all the points raised in the letter and let the hon. Lady have answers as soon as possible.

British Property

Major Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he proposes to take to safeguard the businesses and private property of British subjects in Egypt.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): At the request of Her Majesty's Government and with the agreement of the Egyptian Government, the Swiss Government are acting as Protecting Power for British interests in Egypt. I would also refer to the Answer which my hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant) on 17th December.

Major Wall: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that a large number of British subjects who have returned to this country from Egypt have had confiscated not only their businesses, but personal and private property? Is not

that an example of the completely uncivilised behaviour of the Egyptian Government, and will my right hon. and learned Friend press either for restitution or compensation?

Mr. Lloyd: I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend. This is a matter which causes us grave anxiety. We are trying in a variety of ways to see that the matter is handled properly. One of the difficulties is that the Egyptian Government have not yet agreed to appoint an official agent to take charge of the belongings which British subjects leaving Egypt have been forced to leave behind. I hope that that irregularity will rapidly be put right.

Mr. Janner: While the right hon. and learned Gentleman is dealing with that matter, will he also deal with the question of the sequestration of the effects and the expulsion of people on the grounds of their race or religion, and raise the matter with the United Nations with a view to seeing that the type of Nazi methods being used now in Egypt should be stopped?

Mr. Lloyd: I should certainly like to consider that matter.

Military Operations

Mr. Benn: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on what date agreement was reached with M. Mollet that the United States Government were not to be consulted about the Anglo-French decision to intervene in Egypt.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal to the hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Zilliacus) on 12th December.

Mr. Benn: While thanking the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that Answer, may I ask him if he can help the House? The Prime Minister said on 30th November that we had consulted the United States; on 31st November he said that there was no time to consult the United States; on 9th December M. Mollet said that they had agreed with the British not to consult the United States, and on 12th December the Leader of the House said that there had been no agreement of any kind with regard to consultation. Can the Foreign Secretary advise us which of these stories we should believe?

Mr. Lloyd: The fact is that there was no consultation because there was no time to have consultation.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Since the Minister of Defence told us that we knew on 26th October that Israel was going to attack Egypt, did we have no consultations with the French Government about the action we should take in that emergency; and, if we had consultations, did we agree not to tell the Americans, with whom we had meetings on 28th October and 29th October?

Mr. Lloyd: The meetings on 28th and 29th October were tripartite meetings.

Mr. Noel-Baker: That is precisely the point. Perhaps the Foreign Secretary will answer the first part of my question. Since we knew on 26th October that Israel was going to attack Egypt. did we not consult with the French before 30th October on what we should do?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not know what my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence did say, but if the right hon. Gentleman will study the speech which I made in the last debate which took place, he will see very precisely set out the extent of our knowledge. Of course, anyone knew—any sensible person knew—that in that situation there was the possibility of an attack. There was a possibility of an attack by Israel against any of these countries: there was a possibility of attack by one of the Arab countries upon Israel. There has been general discussions about these eventualities time and again, both with the United States and France.

Mr. Benn: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment, to clear the Prime Minister's name.

Suez Canal

Mr. du Cann: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government to secure international control of the Suez Canal in the interests of free navigation for all nations in accordance with the negotations initiated to that end at the United Nations; and what progress has been made in furtherance of this policy.

Mr. Patrick Maitland: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government to seek a settlement of the Suez Canal problem only on the basis of international control; and when he expects negotiations to be resumed to that end.

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply the Government of Egypt have now made to the offer of Her Majesty's Government to have fresh discussions' on the Suez Canal on the basis of the six principles.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: There has been no change in the policy of Her Majesty's Government. As to the present state of the exchanges on the subject, I would refer to the statement which I made in the House on 3rd December. Exchanges with the Secretary-General of the United Nations have continued with a view to clarifying the position of the parties concerned. These exchanges are confidential and exploratory, and it would not be in the public interest to make a detailed statement on them at this stage.

Mr. du Cann: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the first sentence of his reply will have been heard with great satisfaction by everybody in the House and also by the country? Is he further aware that there is really very great anxiety in this country and among the United Nations that these negotiations should be brought to a successful conclusion as quickly as possible? Is he still further aware that there is substantial concern among the people whom I have mentioned as to what Colonel Nasser's attitude may be after the British and French forces are finally withdrawn from Port Said? That lends added weight to the importance of getting the negotiations finished as quickly as possible.

Mr. Lloyd: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is very desirable to get on as quickly as possible with these negotiations. I understand, in fact, that that is the wish of the Egyptian Government.

Mr. Henderson: Have the Egyptian Government given any indication that they would be prepared to resume these negotiations on the basis of the six principles, provided that the Anglo-French forces are withdrawn from Port Said?

Mr. Lloyd: There has been a general indication of their desire to proceed with these negotiations. At the moment the question is really with the SecretaryGeneral—and I think wisely so. We are ready to play our part as quickly as possible.

Mr. Patrick Maitland: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for the assurance that there has been no change in our policy.

Hon. Members: Which one?

Mr. Maitland: Are we to take it that that means that we still stand by international control as our objective? May I further ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether he considers that when it was stated by the Lord Privy Seal, on 22nd November, that we would try to negotiate on the six points put forward by the United Nations, he meant that those six points could be properly met only by international control?

Mr. Lloyd: The policy of the Government with regard to this matter is exactly as it stood at the end of the Security Council debate, when the Resolution was put forward endorsing the six principles and saying that we considered that the 18-Power proposals were the best method of carrying out the six principles, but that we recognised that alternative methods could be put forward. In the letter sent by the Secretary-General to the Egyptian Government—I believe it was on 24th October—there is set out the broad lines of a scheme which, if properly implemented and worked out in detail, could be regarded as complying with those six principles. We are perfectly ready to examine the alternative methods, but the one essential element of our policy is that we are not prepared to leave the Canal under the unrestristed control of one man or one Government.

Mr. Bevan: The right hon. and learned Gentleman should understand that hon. Members on this side of the House welcome the revolutionary character of the Government's approach. Having failed to obtain their objective by force they now propose to try to obtain the same objective by negotiation, having reversed the whole procedure of history. One usually uses force when one fails in one's negotiations.

Mr. Lloyd: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is getting his objectives confused.

Captain Duncan: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress made towards clearing the Suez Canal.

Mr. Peyton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what information he has received from the Secretary-General of the United Nations concerning the clearance of the Suez Canal; and when he estimates that this will be completed.

Mr. Lewis: asked the Secertary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will refrain from making our offer of the use of British salvage equipment to the United Nations organisation conditional upon such equipment being manned by British crews, in view of the delay in clearing the Canal which will be caused by the insistence upon such a condition.

Captain Pilkington: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether work has yet begun on clearing the rest of the Suez Canal.

Mr. Fort: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress the United Nations Committee has made during the past week in clearing the sunken ships from the Suez Canal.

Mr. John Hall: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a further statement in regard to the date when the clearance of the Suez Canal will continue.

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what discussions he has had with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, with General Burns, and with General Wheeler about the use of British ships and crews for clearing the Suez Canal, and about providing for their protection while carrying out this work.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I made a statement with regard to these matters on Monday which dealt with the points raised in certain of these Questions. The offer to which I referred then, that subject to satisfactory security arrangements the Anglo-French salvage vessels now working at Port Said should continue their work there, has been further considered


by the Secretary-General. He has given the necessary assurances with regard to the protection of the vessels and the crews. He has also received a formal assurance from the Egyptian Government about the safety of the ships and their crews. It will be necessary, of course, to assure the masters and crews of the vessels on this point. I understand that the United Nations authorities on the spot will endeavour to do this. I am now awaiting confirmation that there are no further difficulties and that the work can continue, that is to say, the work now being done by the Anglo-French fleet in Port Said Harbour.
In my statement on Monday, I also mentioned certain German vessels. The United Nations authorities have agreed to make the necessary approach to their owners and the masters and crews of those vessels, so I hope that they will continue to be available for salvage work.
On the question of use of the six other vessels, our offer remains open. I still hope that it will be accepted.

Captain Duncan: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that that is all very unsatisfactory? Does it not appear to many people in this country that handing this business over to the world authority seems to be leading to giving in to petty dictators while putting to shame those, like this country, who have acted throughout in the interests of peace? is it not about time justice was done, as well as peace?

Mr. Lloyd: As I indicated in my statement last Monday, I was disappointed with the progress that had been made, but since the statement on Monday I think that a little further progress has been made. It does look as if we have now got a satisfactory arrangement for work to continue in Port Said Harbour, and that is of some importance. It also looks as if there may be a satisfactory arrangement for the use of the two available heavy German lifting vessels and their tugs. That, also, is an improvement on Monday. As regards the use of the other six vessels and ()fir resources to the south of the area at present held by Anglo-French forces, I am in entire agreement with my hon. and gallant Friend. I think it would in the interests of many countries in Asia and

Europe if national considerations were not allowed to interfere with this matter, if it were looked at purely as a technical problem. It would be in the interests of the world as a whole if everything available were used as quickly as possible.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Can my right hon. and learned Friend say from any aspect of international law, or indeed our own law, what would be the position of an officer, or man in one of Her Majesty's salvage units—I have had a personal case which I could send to him, if need be—who refused to get into civilian clothes and wear the polyglot arm band of the United Nations? Is he to be disciplined by the United Nations or subject to court martial by the admiral on the spot?

Mr. Lloyd: I am not sure that I am the right Minister to give an answer to that. I think it is a matter for the First Lord of the Admiralty. I am not clear how far what the noble Lord has suggested is likely to happen. Leaving all these things on one side, the important thing is to try to get as many people on to the job of clearing the Canal as possible.

Mr. Peyton: I am sure my right hon. and learned Friend would be the first to agree that quite an excessive amount of time has already been wasted. While I certainly support him in the efforts which he has made, may I ask if he will point out to the Secretary-General of the United Nations that the matter is now getting quite out of control and out of proportion, and that there are far greater things at stake than the vanity of a dictator? Will he not insist that the United Nations should now show that it is worthy of being a world authority by ordering that dictator not to act in a way highly damaging to the economy of Western Europe?

Mr. Lloyd: I hope very much that general pressure will result in this work being done speedily. I also say to my hon. Friend that it is not just the economy of Western Europe which is concerned; the economy of the countries of the Middle East and of Asia are also very much affected. Therefore I hope that we shall get the maximum amount of pressure and influence by all those interested to see that the job is done as quickly as possible.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Was it not always the understanding—which the Foreign Secretary accepted in the Assembly—that clearance work would start when foreign troops were withdrawn from Egypt? Is it not a fact that the delay which has occurred has been due to the fact that the Government took five weeks to make up their mind to withdraw our troops? Further, is it not a fact that while we have 15 ships there General Wheeler has assembled a fleet of 31 ships and tugs, that 10 are already on the spot and another nine will arrive tomorrow?

Mr. Lloyd: The right hon. Member is completely wrong. The position which he has attributed to Her Majesty's Government was the position taken up by Colonel Nasser. It was our whole endeavour in our negotiations to ensure that work on clearance began as quickly as possible. Towards the achievement of that purpose we did get the Secretary-General to send his representative, General Wheeler, out there. We did get a certain amount of survey work proceeding and speeded steps to try to assemble a United Nations salvage fleet. We have never accepted that this work should be delayed until the last of our troops had been evacuated.

Mr. Fort: Can my right hon. and learned Friend tell us why the United States are not putting the same pressure on to Egypt, via the United Nations, to get the Canal cleared and thereby forcing the United Nations Resolution on the matter, as they put on this country to force a withdrawal of our troops?

Mr. Lloyd: This is a matter which I did discuss with Mr. Dulles, both when I saw him in Washington and in Paris. I know that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke to the American Secretary to the Treasury about the matter. I believe the United States Government are at present doing their best to bring such pressure as they can upon the United Nations and the Egyptian Government to let this work proceed.

Mr. Bevan: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman understand that we on this side of the House are equally concerned about clearing the Canal as quickly as possible, and have all along taken the view that if hon. and right hon.

Members opposite had not been so stupid the Canal would not be blocked now? Would he please accept from us the assurance that we do not believe the Canal can be cleared either by denigrating the status and conduct of the United Nations representative or by throwing silly insults at the Prime Minister of Egypt, in relation to which hon. Members opposite have got themselves into such a silly position?

Mr. Hall: Is it not a fact that had this country and France not taken immediate notice of the United Nations the Canal might not be blocked now? Is it not obvious that the United Nations is as powerless to insist on the clearance of the Canal as it is powerless to insist on the removal of Russian troops from Russia. [Laughter.] I meant Russian troops from Hungary. Right hon. and hon. Gentleman know perfectly well what I meant, and it is no laughing matter. In those circumstances, what action can be taken other than turning our White Ensign into a white flag?

Mr. Lloyd: The authority of the United Nations in this matter comes from a Resolution which was passed by the General Assembly for which we voted, for which Egypt voted and for which all other countries present, I think, voted. I am not quite certain whether there were some abstentions. The authority is a United Nations Resolution. I also received assurances in the course of the discussions which I had that this matter would be governed solely by technical considerations. That is what I think we must try to see is done. If it is not done, then I think that certain of the things which have been said will not have been carried out.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Hynd.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANISATION

Council Meeting

Mr. Boyd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps Her Majesty's Government will propose to promote greater unity among the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation nations; and if he will support proposals for more frequent meetings of the Ministerial


Council, more mutual consultation in the shaping of policy on matters of common concern, and an elected Consultative Assembly.

Mr. Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on his recent visit to Paris for the purpose of attending the North Atlantic Pact Council.

Mr. John Hall: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what agreement has been reached between the members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation on the right of individual member countries to take such action as may be necessary to defend their vital interests without prior consultation with their fellow members.

Mr. Dudley Williams: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what discussions took place at the recent meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Council on the limitations imposed by membership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation on the actions of member States when their vital interests are affected; and what conclusions resulted therefrom.

Mr. G. Brown: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to make a statement about the recent meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Council.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The House will have seen the communiqué issued after this meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Council. In approving the recommendation contained in the Report of the Three Wise Men the Council affirmed the importance of consultation on all matters significantly affecting the alliance. It was recognised however, that emergencies might arise in which such consultation would be obviously impossible. National Governments must bear the ultimate responsibility for safeguarding national interests. Subject to that I hope that as a result of this last meeting consultation in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Council will be considerably improved.
The new directive for military planning, which is naturally a secret document, should provide for effective and economic use of resources available With

regard to the question of an elected consultative assembly, that was not discussed at these meetings.
The Council unanimously approved the appointment of the Belgian Foreign Minister, M. Spaak, as Secretary-General in succession to Lord Ismay. I am sure that the House will agree that this is a most happy choice. I would also like to say how deep are our regrets at Lord Ismay's decision to retire. It is impossible to exaggerate the magnitude of his services to the alliance. The House would have been proud to hear the tributes paid to him by our allies.

Mr. Boyd: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman give us any more information than we have had from the newspapers about his proposal for this grand design for a N.A.T.O. Parliament, including the Council of Europe?

Mr. Lloyd: It is not easy to do that by way of question and answer. I suggested that the Report of the Three Wise Men should be considered against a wider background in which one would seek to get some rationalisation of all the many organisations, authorities and assemblies now being created in Europe.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: May I associate my right hon. and hon. Friends with the tribute which the Foreign Secretary has paid to the great services rendered by Lord Ismay?

Mr. Ramsdell: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that opinion among our friends in Europe appears to be by no means unanimous about the merits of this proposed new assembly? Will he pay particular regard to what emerges from the debates of the Council of Europe at its forthcoming session in January?

Mr. Lloyd: I agree with my hon. Friend. At the moment there is the Council of Europe, the W.E.U. Assembly and the Iron and Steel Community Assembly. I think it necessary to have some sort of rationalisation—to see whether we can have one assembly, and not all these numerous organisations.

Mr. Brown: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that he has only answered Question No. 56. The Minister of Defence, to whom the question was put, seems curiously reluctant to tell us anything about the defence aspect of the


talks. The Secretary of State has said that the military directive is a secret document. Can he tell us what sort of direction the military talks in Paris took, and whether our own wide review of defence policy which was promised by the Chancellor comes after the issue of this new directive and, if it does, whether it will override it?

Mr. Lloyd: I should think the two things must proceed pari passu.

Mr. Ellis Smith: What does that mean?

United States Base, Iceland

Mr. Wigg: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the effect on Britain's North Atlantic Treaty Organisation policy of the recent agreement between the United States of America and Iceland about the use of Icelandic bases.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Her Majesty's Government welcome this Agreement, which provides for the continued use by the United States of the base at Keflavik. The effect on Her Majesty's Government's policy is unchanged.

Mr. Wigg: Does it mean that we have facilities to use the Icelandic base? Is Iceland included in our radar warning system?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Unofficial Press reports to the effect that the new Agreement will exclude the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation from a voice in the future of the base are incorrect. The arrangement by which the North Atlantic Council is required to advise upon any proposal for termination continues.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED NATIONS

Middle East (Situation)

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will approach the Powers that met at Geneva last year and propose joint action through the United Nations for a general settlement in the Middle East based on the principles, purposes and obligations of the Charter, with special reference to Arab-Israeli relations and the present position in Syria and Iraq.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: No, Sir. An item on the Middle East is already on the

agenda of the General Assembly for discussion in the Plenary Session. As my right hon. and gallant Friend told the House on 19th November and 26th November, Her Majesty's Government will play their part as a member of the United Nations in seeking a solution to the Palestine problem on a basis of justice. No doubt the other Powers who met at Geneva will also play their part within the United Nations framework.

Mr. Zilliacus: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that "playing our part means having a policy? Will he please state what is the policy of the Government in this matter. Do not the Government realise that the whole system of alliances in the Middle East has broken down and that we cannot treat the Soviet Union as a negligible quantity and hope to get anywhere in the Middle East? Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that we cannot settle Arab-Israeli relations so long as the great Powers compete for the favour of the Arabs at the expense of the State of Israel?

Mr. Lloyd: One of the best ways to try to get a settlement in the Middle East is to preserve peace—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—between the competing parties—

Mr. Zilliacus: The right hon. and learned Gentleman might have thought of that before.

Mr. Lloyd: —and we have been sufficiently criticised for doing that very thing.

Mr. Bevan: Together with the Prime Minister, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said within recent months that the United Nations is what we can make it. My hon. Friends wish to know what initiative has been taken by Her Majesty's Government in presenting a Middle Eastern policy? Are we waiting for someone else to take the initiative now, or are we taking it ourselves? What does the right hon. and learned Gentleman mean by, "playing our part"? Are we waiting for someone else to say something and then we shall react to it, or shall we say something and make others react to what we say?

Mr. Lloyd: The way to get a settlement of the Middle East problems is to get some agreement between Israel and


the Arab States. The right hon. Gentleman really should know that the worst possible way to do that is to propound the sort of settlement to be imposed on the parties. It is a matter of negotiation.

Mr. Bevan: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I have not asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he has a policy to impose upon anybody else. The United Nations cannot impose a policy. What we want to know is what initiative Her Majesty's Government themselves take in the United Nations to propose a policy; or are we now sitting back in sulky silence?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not know about "sulky silence", but the right hon. Gentleman should know that there is a Resolution before the General Assembly in which the suggestion is put forward on behalf of the United States Government that a committee should be appointed by the General Assembly to seek to achieve a solution between the parties. There is not much point in appointing a committee in this matter if individual Governments are going to put forward individual solutions.

Mr. Bevan: Why not?

Mr. Lloyd: I say agan to the right hon. Gentleman that public statements are not the best way. So far as public statements are concerned, he knows that the first thing is to have peace on the frontiers. We have suggested an increase in the United Nations element to do that and we have been doing that for nearly two years. Now a United Nations Force is there. The second thing is to get a frontier agreement. Proposals were put forward. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made some in his Guildhall speech, and they were criticised by hon. Members opposite. Thirdly, there is the question of the refugees. Some solution has to be found to the problem of the resettlement of the refugees. The fourth question is with regard to the water problems. There, the proposals put forward by Mr. Johnson are acceptable to Her Majesty's Government. The difficulty is to get the parties to accept them. Clearly designed lines of policy have been indicated again and again; the difficulty is to get the parties to agree to them.

Dame Irene Ward: Is the right lion. and learned Gentleman aware that in the

Middle East the Opposition is known as "Nasser's Party"? Is not it a fact that that is the way in which they have spoken today?

Palestinian Refugees (Resettlement)

Dr. Stross: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware of the United Nations plan for the resettlement of Palestinian Arabs in the Suez area; and what action he intends to take to further this and other plans on their behalf.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: The hon. Member is presumably referring to the scheme for the settlement of 60,000 refugees from Gaza in Western Sinai. I understand that the Egyptian Government have informed the United Nations Relief and Works Agency that they are unable to supply the necessary water until the Aswan High Dam is built, and the scheme is therefore in abeyance.
The only other major scheme under consideration is that for settling 100,000 refugees in the Jordan Valley. This is not practicable until the governments concerned come to an agreement for co-ordinated use of the waters of the Jordan.
Her Majesty's Government will continue to give all possible support to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency in its search for practicable resettlement schemes.

Dr. Stross: Can the Joint Under-Secretary state whether the excuse given that until the Aswan Dam has been created water would not be available is correct?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I think it probably is. As hon. Members on both sides of the House know, the extension of irrigation works in Egypt is such that they do require over a period ahead a considerable amount of water, but I cannot give a detailed answer on any particular point.

Mr. S. Silverman: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that this question, like so many other relevant questions about this subject, is completely bedevilled by the general political situation which lies behind it, and that we shall never get any satisfactory settlement of this tragic problem except as part of a general political settlement in the area? Does the


hon. Gentleman not realise that it is completely impossible to produce any feeling of security between Arabs on the one side and Israelis on the other while all their countries are being periodically played off one against the other by one or other of the great Powers for their own purposes? If that is so, is not it necessary that all the interested parties, without exception, should be got together to make an endeavour to work out an agreed solution.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: While accepting the hon. Member's analysis, I must reject the accusation against Her Majesty's Government either as it affects my right hon. Friends on this Bench or right hon. Gentlemen opposite. I think that we have all done our best since the unhappy days of 1947–48 to reach a settlement.

Mr. Bevan: May I ask the hon. Gentleman to realise that so far as we on these benches are concerned this is not a matter for scoring over one side of the House or the other? There is anxiety in all parts of the House. May I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider that it seems to us that what is required is a general approach to the question so that the various pieces fall into place. The Yarmuk-Jordan Scheme, the Johnson Scheme, the Lowdermilk Scheme and all the other schemes cannot, so far as we can see, be approached intelligently by the Middle East unless they form part of a general design. We should like to know what general design the Government have in mind to advance.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: The Foreign Secretary has just shown how these various problems do exist and affect the problem of a settlement. Sometimes it looks as if a package agreement might be reached and then it falls to bits. Then there may be a suggestion that one or other of the schemes might be proceeded with individually. The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that these various approaches have been made, and Her Majesty's present Ministers will do their utmost to reach a settlement by one way or the other.

British Subjects, Egypt (Property and Assets)

Dr. Stross: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations he proposes to make to the

United Nations organisation on behalf of British subjects whose property and assets have been expropriated by the Egyptian Government; and whether he will give an estimate of their total value.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: As the House will be aware, we have made the strongest representations to the Secretary-General of the United Nations on this matter and the Secretary-General has instructed his representative in Cairo to investigate the treatment of foreign nationals in Egypt. The matter was raised in the Assembly yesterday and our representative made clear the great indignation aroused in this country. I have not yet seen the full text of the Egyptian representative's statement but I understand that it did contain certain assurances which I hope indicate that the Egyptian Government are moderating their policy. We shall not let this matter rest until we get satisfactory assurances which are translated into action.
As regards the second part of the Question. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant) on 17th December.

Dr. Stross: While all of us welcome the assurances that appear to be given now by Egypt that they will moderate their original intention, will the Foreign Secretary see that everything possible is done to encourage them in their apparent new policy, for there can be no good future for anyone who embarks upon actions which really might well be called throughout all time barbarous in degree?

Mr. Lloyd: I entirely agree with what the hon. Member has said.

Mr. Nairn: Will my right hon. and learned Friend also try to find out from the United Nations what use is being made of British Government property and assets which were in the Canal bases?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir.

Security Council and General Assembly (Resolutions)

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs which Resolutions of the General Assembly, and


Security Council of the United Nations were voted against by our representative during the last three months; on which we abstained; and on which occasions we exercised the veto.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: As the information required is somewhat lengthy, I shall, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT in a form which will enable hon. Members, by reference to the documents in the Library of the House, to see what was covered by those Resolutions for which the United Kingdom did not vote during the period in question.

Mr. Hynd: Does the Minister realise that our action in vetoing some of these Resolutions has made it practically impossible for our representative at the United Nations to object to other countries taking similar action in future?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I do not accept that for a moment.

Following is the information:

SECURITY COUNCIL

1. The United Kingdom vetoed the following resolutions:

Subject, Resolution Number and Sponsoring Country

Middle East. S. 3710. United States.
Middle East. S. 3713 Rev. 1. U.S.S,R.

2. The United Kingdom voted against the following resolutions:

Subject, Resolution Number and Sponsoring Country

Middle East. S. Agenda 734 Rev. 1. Yugoslavia.
Middle East. S. 3719. Yugoslavia.

3. The United Kingdom abstained on the following resolutions:

Subject, Resolution Number and Sponsoring country

Middle East. S. 3624. Australia.
Middle East. S. 3712. Egypt.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

1. The United Kingdom voted against the following resolutions:

Subject, Resolution Number and Sponsoring country

Middle East. A/RES/390. United States.
Middle East. A/RES/392. 19-Power.
Chinese Representation. A/RES/406. India.
Middle East. A/RES/410. 21-Power.

2. The United Kingdom abstained on the following resolutions:

Subject, Resolution Number and Sponsoring country

Middle East. AIRES/391 Canada.
Middle East. A/RES/394. Canada and other Powers.
Middle East. A/RES/396. 19-Power.
UNKRA. A/RES/415. (Forwarded from Second Committee to Plenary.)

Hydrogen Bomb Tests

Mr. Parkin: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what initiative Her Majesty's Government are taking during the current session of the United Nations Assembly to secure an agreement to suspend hydrogen bomb tests.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Her Majesty's Government stand by the Anglo-French comprehensive disarmament plan which provides for the prohibition of tests at an appropriate stage and under proper safeguards. Her Majesty's Government's interest in the limitation of such tests is well known, and that possibility is now being explored.

Mr. Parkin: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure us that Her Majesty's Government are taking the initiative in the current session of the United Nations to press these points of view and to press for an agreement? Will he publicly dissociate himself from those maniacs who are now saying that provided we have a big enough bomb there is no longer any need to worry about alliances or international agreements or even about how we are to earn an honest living in the world?

Mr. Lloyd: I should like to see the words of the quotation from which I have been asked to dissociate myself.

Mr. Parkin: In HANSARD today.

Mr. Lloyd: As for the suggestion for an initiative, I would point out that in answer to an earlier Question in the House I indicated what would happen in the near future about meetings on disarmament. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that our interest in a limitation of the tests will certainly be raised.

Mr. A. Henderson: In view of the fact that the Russian Government put forward their latest proposals on 17th November and that the United States Government put forward their recent proposals only two or three days ago, do Her Majesty's


Government propose to make any statement to the House as to their latest proposals, in view of the fact that we are rising on Friday?

Mr. Lloyd: No, Sir. I do not think that a statement will be made to the House upon this matter before we rise, because I think these two sets of proposals need careful consideration before we reach our conclusions on them.

CYPRUS (BROADCASTS)

Mr. Bean: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on what date his Department began preparing material for transmission from the former Sharq-al-Adna station in Cyprus; what staff are at present engaged in this work; on what previous occasions his Department has undertaken direct broadcasting; and if he will arrange for all the scripts to be made available in the Library of the House of Commons.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: The Foreign Office began preparing material on 30th October. The staff engaged is composed partly of established members of the Foreign Service and partly of unestablished employees. The preparation of broadcasting material and the broadcasting of programmes has always been one of the functions of information officers.
As regards the hon. Member's request for scripts, I would refer him to the reply given on 17th December to the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart).

Mr. Benn: In view of the fact that the psychological warfare unit of the Allied Command which did the previous broadcasts over this station did not include anyone who was able to speak Arabic and therefore played, over the "Voice of Britain", as incidental music, Colonel Nasser's own march, composed for Egypt, will he say whether, in his judgment, the Foreign Office is likely to do better? Would it not be better still to give the job to the B.B.C., who are skilled in telling the truth abroad?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I do not know to which march of Colonel Nasser's the hon. Member is referring, but I understand that there is one which is played on the bagpipes and which includes the phrase:
Will ye no' come back?

Mrs. Castle: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will hand over to the British Broadcasting Corporation responsibility for the broadcasts now being organised by his Department from the Sharq-al-Adna Broadcasting Station in Cyprus.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Discussions have been going on with the British Broadcasting Corporation to determine how much the Corporation's contribution to the programmes of this station can be increased. At present the British Broadcasting Corporation contributes four-and-three-quarter hours a day out of a total of fifteen hours which is being broadcast.

Mrs. Castle: Is the Minister aware that this is not a question of increasing the contribution of the B.B.C. but of deciding whether our propaganda in the Middle East can be done more effectively by the voice of the British nation through the B.B.C., which is recognised as reliable in its facts and impartial, or whether it should be done through a Government agency which is pouring out partial propaganda, which, I must add—having read many of the scripts which have now been made available—is very dull and bad propaganda?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I cannot accept what the hon. Lady says. The question of the future of this station, as has already been said, is under consideration by my right hon. and hon. Friends. It is not just a question of dull propaganda. If anyone, even one of us in this House, listens for more than two hours a day he knows that there are other things to which people want to listen besides talks and news. One of the things people want to listen to is music, and I would say to the hon. Lady, if she will keep it to herself, that certain investigations are going on north of the Border during hogmanay because they seem to produce the sort of music which people in the Middle East like.

DISARMAMENT (SOVIET PROPOSALS)

Mr. Harold Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) when, in view of the fact that the disarmament proposals made by the Soviet Government on 17th November are nearer to those of the Western


Powers, he intends to discuss the proposals with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics;
(2) whether, in view of the proposals of the Soviet Government on aerial inspection, Her Majesty's Government will urgently speed up consideration of the disarmament problem by supporting the Soviet suggestion of a meeting of the heads of Government of the five Powers.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: We believe that the proper forum for the discussion of disarmament is provided by the specialised bodies already established by the United Nations—the Disarmament Commission and its Sub-Committee. Experience shows that the sort of high-level conference such as is proposed by the Russians is unlikely to be any more effective. Nor is disarmament a subject on which Her Majesty's Government would wish to hold bilateral discussions with the, Soviet Government to the exclusion of their Western partners in the Disarmament Sub-Committee.

Mr. Davies: I realise that the Special Agencies may be the proper bodies to undertake this work. The reason why I am asking the Foreign Secretary this question is to find out whether we have an attitude or policy upon these Russian proposals, which are nearer the Western proposals than those made at any other time. This would be one of the ways of demonstrating to the world that, far from Britain having lost her greatness, she still has the capacity for leadership in real world affairs.

Mr. Lloyd: I have studied these new Russian proposals. Some of them are very reminiscent of previous proposals put forward, and the extent to which they come nearer to the Western proposals is a matter for doubt. Nevertheless, they are new proposals. Therefore, they are worthy of consideration. The Disarmament Commission is due to meet tomorrow, and I hope that there will be a meeting of the Disarmament Sub-Committee in the near future. There is bound to be a debate in the General Assembly, or at least in the Political Committee of the General Assembly, with regard to disarmament, so there are plenty of opportunities for putting forward our point of view. I think it would be a mistake to have bilateral discussions with the Russians at the moment.

STRAITS OF GIBRALTAR

Mr. Collins: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the dissolution of the International Zone of Tangier, he will take steps to negotiate agreed international control of the Straits of Gibraltar.

Mr. Usborne: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what treaty arrangements affecting the United Kingdom govern the Straits of Gibraltar since the dissolution of the international zone of Tangier; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: No, Sir.
In accordance with recognised principles of international law the Straits of Gibraltar are open to unrestricted navigation by the ships of the world. There are not treaty arrangements governing the Straits, nor do I think any are necessary.

Mr. Collins: Is the Minister aware that the Suez Canal was open to the ships of the world under international agreement? In view of the fact that the new rulers of Morocco may take a different view from the previous controlling Powers about the demilitarisation of the southern coast of the Straits, does he not think that it would be wise now to submit to the United Nations proposals for international control?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: No, Sir, I do not think there is any need for that. The Straits are not comparable with the Suez Canal, which is not the high seas. The narrowest point of the Straits of Gibraltar is 10 miles wide and in our view thus includes some four miles of the high seas.

Mr. Usborne: In view of what has happened in recent weeks, would the Government not agree that it might be a good idea if at least the fortress of Gibraltar were handed over to the United Nations, so that, along with the Sinai Peninsula, it could provide a permanent base for the United Nations police force?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I cannot for a moment accept that that would appeal either to Her Majesty's present Ministers or to the people of Gibraltar.

Mr. C. Jeger: Will the Minister recall that a few weeks ago his right hon. Friend


promised that a White Paper would be issued on the present position of Tangier? When may we expect that?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I will look into that point, and let the hon. Member know.

CHINA (TRADE)

Mr. Harold Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what further progress has been made drastically to reduce the embargo on various exports to China.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: On the substance of the Question. I have nothing to add to the reply given on 29th October to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-lyme (Mr. Swingler) by the then Minister of State. As was foreshadowed in the House on 14th May, more use has been made of the exceptions procedure to permit reasonable exports in appropriate cases to China of goods which are not on the Soviet lists.

Mr. Davies: While appreciating that answer, may I ask whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not aware that because of the devastating economic and physical position in the Middle East, we have lost a market of about £150 million a year, and that if we could get rid of Cocom in Paris we could now gain some markets in China? Does he not feel that the time has come to look anew at the whole Asiatic world in view of the disastrous position in which this country has now been placed in regard to Asia through the Suez activities of this Government?

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Member will not, of course, expect me to agree with the last part of his supplementary question. In this matter we have to try to act with our allies. I think it is better to try to make progress in terms of individual articles or individual transactions, and if the hon. Member has any particular case in mind I shall be very glad to ask my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to consider it.

Mr. Bevan: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider, between now and when the House reassembles after the Recess, presenting the House with a White Paper on this matter, to give us a clearer picture of the situation?

Does he realise that there are a large number of business people in this country who feel that very much more trade can be done with China and that, now that the Chinese Government have decided that they cannot proceed with the intensification of industrialisation as quickly as formerly, there will be a larger market for consumer goods that we could provide? Ought we therefore not to consider this matter realistically and with a considerable sense of urgency?

Mr. Lloyd: I will certainly consider the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion. It might well be that such a White Paper would be valuable.

Mr. Dudley Williams: Will the Minister bear in mind that there are a considerable number of people on both sides of the House who think that we can greatly increase our trade with China and who think that if we are not very careful we shall find that this large trading unit has become another department of the trading unit of the United States? Will my right hon. and learned Friend do everything he can to ensure that we get an adequate slice of any trade that arises?

Mr. Lloyd: I can assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have very much in mind the consideration which he raises. We are, of course, constantly enjoined in these matters to act in consultation with our allies. That we have been doing. In fact, the matter has been put very forcibly to some of our allies more than once during the last few months.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Sir ROBERT GRIMSTON: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, what reports he has received from the Secretary-General of the United Nations on plans for the clearance of the Suez Canal, and the liberation of ships trapped therein.

Sir R. Grimston: On a point of order. My Question No. 33, Mr. Speaker, deals with ships trapped in the Canal. As that is a very topical Question and one of great interest, would you permit my right hon. and learned Friend to answer it, if he is willing so to do?

Mr. Speaker: I have had no notice of a request to answer this Question after the normal time, a request which must be made before I can allow it.

SUEZ CANAL

Mr. Patrick Maitland: May I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker? Some of us have been much disturbed by a report in the Press last night about the possibility of Royal Naval officers and men serving out of uniform in the Canal area. May I ask your guidance as to how one could effectively get that matter aired? I understand that we shall be on the Motion for the Adjournment at seven o'clock in any case, so we cannot move the Adjournment to get a discussion on this subject. Could you give me guidance as to how to raise the matter?

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that I cannot.

NORTHERN IRELAND (SITUATION)

The Prime Minister (Sir Anthony Eden): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement on the situation in Northern Ireland.
Her Majesty's Government have the greatest sympathy for the people of Northern Ireland in face of the recent outbreaks of violence to which they have been exposed. We pay tribute, in particular, to the courage and resource of the members of the Royal Ulster Constabularly and the special constables who have borne the brunt of these attacks. Her Majesty's Government recognise that the situation is still fraught with danger, which the people of Northern Ireland have faced and are facing with exemplary restraint.
Immediately after the outbreak of violence on 12th December, Her Majesty's Ambassador in Dublin arranged to see the Republican Minister of External Affairs to obtain further information from him and to express the serious view which Her Majesty's Government would be bound to take of these events.
As the House will know, on 14th December the Republican Government issued a statement on their own initiative in which they said that they had determined to take, in conjunction with the

police and defence forces of the Republic, such steps as they deemed necessary and appropriate to prevent activities which, if they were allowed to continue, would inevitably cause loss of life. In the light of this, Her Majesty's Government decided to direct Her Majesty's Ambassador to deliver a communication expressing their very great concern at the recent incidents in Northern Ireland, and the hope that the important objective which the Republican Government had proclaimed in their statement would be effectively and successfully secured.
In the Ireland Act, 1949, the Parliament at Westminster declared Northern Ireland to be an integral part of the United Kingdom. This is a declaration which all parties in this House are pledged to support. The safety of Northern Ireland and of its inhabitants is, therefore, a direct responsibility of Her Majesty's Government, which they will, of course, discharge.

Mr. Gaitskell: The Prime Minister has referred, very properly, to the statement issued by the Republican Government of Ireland on 14th December. I wonder whether he could tell the House whether he knows what the Republican Government have actually done in this matter since then?

The Prime Minister: We have been in communication with the Republican Government, but I am afraid that I have no detailed statement that I can make. If the right hon. Gentleman would like to repeat the question tomorrow, I might have further information, which I should be glad to give.

Mr. P. O'Neill: On behalf of myself and my hon. Friends, may I say that we welcome very much the Prime Minister's statement? We should like to associate ourselves with this tribute to the courage and exemplary conduct of the R.U.C. and of the special constabulary in discharging their duties under very trying conditions. But is it not a fact that, if history has taught us anything, it is that Ulstermen—and, for that matter, Irishmen, on whatever side of the border they may dwell—cannot be coerced?
Is my right hon. Friend aware that these senseless outrages are condemned by the overwhelming majority of all classes and creeds on both sides of the border? Is he further aware that to bring


such outrages to an end, co-operation between the authorities in both the North and the South is essential, and will he continue to work to achieve this so that peace and sanity may be restored? Does he agree that if, unhappily, these outrages continue, every assistance which the Northern Ireland Government may require to restore order and security will immediately be forthcoming?

The Prime Minister: I think that my hon. Friend is absolutely correct when he says that the overwhelming feeling on both sides of the border is against outrages of this character. I have given a full account of the action taken up to date, and I can only tell him that the responsibility mentioned in the last sentence of my statement is one which, I think, any Government of this country would always feel ready to discharge. At the same time, I think that the whole House will agree that we want to try to avoid, if we can, this matter becoming even more serious than it now is. My own feeling, therefore, is that I would rather add nothing more to the statement which I have made to the House this afternoon.

CYPRUS (LORD RADCLIFFE'S PROPOSALS)

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): Lord Radcliffe's report on a Constitution for Cyprus is being published today as a White Paper in the United Kingdom and in Cyprus. It is a statesmanlike document, and the whole House will, I am sure, be grateful for the vigour with which Lord Radcliffe has carried out his task and the wisdom which he has shown.
The Report is in two parts—the recommendations for the Constitution and a covering note which explains why Lord Radcliffe has preferred his conclusions to other possible arrangements.
Lord Radcliffe recommends a single chamber Assembly with 6 seats reserved for members elected by voters on the Turkish Cypriot roll, 24 for members elected by the rest of the population, and 6 for members nominated by the Governor. Very careful arrangements have been devised to protect the interests of all communities. There will be a Cabinet, with a Chief Minister, respon-

sible to the Legislative Assembly. These arrangements will give to the people of Cyprus the widest possible measure of autonomy compatible with the reservation to the Governor of defence, external affairs and public security.
Her Majesty's Government have brought these proposals to the attention of the Greek and Turkish Governments, and, as the House knows, I have just visited Greece and Turkey for discussions on them.
Her Majesty's Government, after consultation with the Governor of Cyprus, accept, as a whole, the proposals which Lord Radcliffe has made. In our view, they represent a fair balance between the different and often conflicting interests which are involved.
Her Majesty's Government will be prepared to introduce such a Constitution as soon as we are satisfied that a situation exists in Cyprus in which genuine elections can be held free from violence and intimidation. A start is at once being made with the drafting of the necessary constitutional instruments so that elections may be held as soon as conditions allow.
As the House knows, the terms of reference given to Lord Radcliffe envisaged a Constitution for a self-governing Cyprus under British sovereignty. As regards the eventual status of the island, Her Majesty's Government have already affirmed their recognition of the principle of self-determination. When the international and strategic situation permits, and provided that self-government is working satisfactorily, Her Majesty's Government will be ready to review the question of the application of self-determination.
When the time comes for this review, that is, when these conditions have been fulfilled, it will be the purpose of Her Majesty's Government to ensure that any exercise of self-determination should be effected in such a manner that the Turkish Cypriot community, no less than the Greek Cypriot community, shall, in the special circumstances of Cyprus, be Oven freedom to decide for themselves their future status. In other words, Her Majesty's Government recognise that the exercise of self-determination in such a mixed population must include partition among the eventual options.
Her Majesty's Government will keep in close touch with the Greek and Turkish Governments on the international aspects of the problem.
I hope that we are on the eve of a new and happy chapter in the long history of Cyprus. It is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to do all that they can to bring this about.

Mr. Callaghan: While we can all join with the Colonial Secretary's hopes that this will open a new chapter, may I ask whether the reports are true that the Constitution provides what might be called built-in guarantees for the Turkish people? if that is so, why has he thought it necessary to introduce at this stage, to "throw into the pot," this irritant of partition? Would it not have been better to have kept the position as far as self-determination is concerned where it stood —namely, in accordance with the statement made by the Prime Minister earlier?
May I also ask whether the Government regard this Constitution as being negotiable? Although it is acceptable to them as a whole, would they be willing to discuss modifications of it with other persons interested?
Finally, can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the position of Archbishop Makarios? Is he not an essential feature here? Would it not be wise to permit him to see persons and the documents concerned so that he can consult them, as he has such great influence in this matter?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman is, indeed, right in suggesting that the Constitution provides very careful built-in guarantees for the Turkish community and other communities in Cyprus. I was able to explain this in considerable detail to the Turkish Prime Minister two or three days ago. But I think we must recognise the natural anxiety of the Turkish people in the longer-term future of the island if the principle of self-determination is applied. I cannot see how it is anything other than logical to grant a community with such close interests with Turkey, and only 40 miles away, the same rights as we are prepared to recognise should go to the Greek community.
The hon. Gentleman also asked me about possible amendments of Lord Radcliffe's Constitution. While, of

course, as I explained to the Greek and Turkish Prime Ministers, we would pay the greatest possible attention to any suggestions which may be made, and the same will apply, of course, to suggestions from the people of Cyprus or from hon. Members of this House, Lord Radcliffe's proposals represent a balanced whole, and it would be difficult to disturb that plan in any very considerable way without spoiling the plan as a whole.
The hon. Gentleman also asked me about Archbishop Makarios. The constitutional proposals and the statement that I have just made are being shown this afternoon to Archbishop Makarios. Tomorrow, Lord Radcliffe's secretary and a senior Greek-speaking officer of the Government of Cyprus will arrive in the Seychelles to explain the proposals to him. Should he wish to talk to someone from Cyprus or from Greece, Her Majesty's Government will provide the necessary facilities.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Clement Davies.

Mr. Hector Hughes: On a point of order. As the Colonial Secretary's statement was obviously in reply to my Question No. 76, am I not entitled to ask—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The statement was not so expressed.

Mr. Clement Davies: May I say that we all sincerely hope, with the Secretary of State for the Colonies, that this is the beginning of a new and a happier chapter in the history of this island. May I also say that I am sure that all of us will welcome the statement that there is to be an approach to Archbishop Makarios, even at this stage?
May I ask this question? I realise that this matter will have to be considered and debated. There has been consultation between the right hon. Gentleman, the Turkish Government and the Government of Greece. Did Lord Radcliffe have any discussions with any responsible person among the Greek community in Cyprus before drawing up and issuing his Report?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The right hon. and learned Gentleman must not read into what I said about the Archbishop anything more than I did say. I did not say that there was any question of Her Majesty's Government or the Governor


reopening negotiations with the Archbishop. What I said was that the Archbishop would be free—and that we would provide the necessary facilities if he wanted to do so—tc consult with representatives from Greece or Cyprus.
In reply to the second of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's questions, though there were obvious difficulties in the way, Lord Radcliffe did manage to have some consultations in Cyprus, and, of course, he was left in no doubt at all, through much reading and a great deal of study of the matter, of the views of the Cypriot people on these various problems.

Mr. Bevan: We are unable to express any view about the nature of Lord Radcliffe's recommendations because we have not seen them, but may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he found it absolutely essential to make his reference to the possibility of partition in the island in relation to those recommendations? Is there not a danger that that addendum will once more poison the atmosphere and prevent a settlement in the island?
Is there not a danger that in winning the acquiescence of the Turks the right hon. Gentleman will once more lose the support of the Greeks and we shall once again be where we were? Would it not have been far better to have left it where it was—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—in the sense of self-determination, where we had originally stated it? That is what I meant. I am referring now to self-determination.
Furthermore, in view of the experience which we have had with Cyprus as an effective base, ought not the whole situation to be reconsidered? Ought we not to reconsider it with our N.A.T.O. allies? In other words, do we really want Cyprus as a base? Do we, the British, want it? Could we not have a base on Cyprus with our N.A.T.O. allies without any of the political difficulties involved in the present situation?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is still our view, very strongly, that our strategic position in Cyprus remains vital for the performance of our defence obligations in the Middle East.
I hope that there is no misunderstanding about partition as an eventual possibility, an eventual solution among the

possible solutions. I made it quite clear, I hope, that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government that there should be this Constitution in Cyprus. After the Constitution has been shown to be working satisfactorily, and when the international and strategic situation permits, then we are prepared to consider the application of self-determination, but during the intervening period there will be a chance for this Constitution, with, I hope, the good will of both sides of the House, to get well under way.
Then, at that later stage, when those circumstances arise, and when the conditions have been fulfilled, there would be a test of the public opinion in Cyprus. If that test was in favour of a change of sovereignty, there would be a second test of the views of the Turkish population, and they would be entitled to the same right to choose their destiny as the majority of the island. I believe that this is the logical consequence of the pleas for self-determination raised on both sides of the House. I cannot believe that any responsible statesman, faced with having to find a solution to this intractable problem, could have come to wiser decisions than have Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Would my right hon. Friend say something about the Governor's powers in the proposed Constitution? Am I right in thinking that there are reserved to him only the three topics my right hon. Friend mentioned, or has he wider powers than that?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As the House will see when it reads the Report—it is a very carefully and skilfully presented Report and easy to understand—the powers of the Governor are clearly defined. Any laws made by the Assembly need the Governor's formal assent, but it is formal, given automatically, save in two cases. The first is where a Bill passed might deal with a reserved matter, and the second arises where a Bill is repugnant to the Constitution, provision being made for a reference to the Supreme Court. Otherwise, the Governor's powers are very, very restricted. Indeed, as Lord Radcliffe says, the Ministers responsible to the legislature are intended to be masters in their own, the non-reserved, field.

Mr. Bevan: The only thing we can do at the moment is to consider what the


right hon. Gentleman has said in his statement. We can make no comment about Lord Radcliffe's Report; we have not got it. The question I put to the right hon. Gentleman was this. Was it absolutely essential, in order to obtain the best possible reception that he could obtain for Lord Radcliffe's proposals for a new Constitution, at this stage to make a statement about the character of a future plebiscite which, while it might reconcile the Turks, would offend the Greeks? Would it not have been much wiser to have taken the recommendations on their merits, leaving the future of the island with respect to sovereignty where it was left by the original statement of the Government? Has the right hon. Gentleman not once more prepared the worst kind of atmosphere for the reception of his own proposals?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I must repeat that I cannot see how it could be regarded as unfair to grant to a very important community, only 40 miles away from the Turkish coast, the same rights as we are prepared to recognise for the Greek population. I beg the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), if he ever has any ambition to have to cope with problems of this kind, to study the matter with a sense of responsibility and not with the abandon which can come with opposition.

Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Secretary of State whether the partition proposal was discussed with the Greek and Turkish Governments?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: There is no proposal for partition. I am not suggesting that at this moment there should be the partition of Cyprus, and I think that none of us would regard partition here, or in many other parts of the world, as the best solution of the many problems there. This situation will arise only when the international situation permits, and when the Constitution, the terms of which will be issued this afternoon, has got properly under way. I did, of course, bring to the attention of both the Greek and the Turkish Governments the gist of the statement I have made, and that includes the reference to partition.

Mr. Gaitskell: Was that discussed with them?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In accordance with normal practice, it was arranged that I should make a statement on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, and the Greek and Turkish Governments, if they so wish, will make their own statements; but I think that it would be very unwise for me to say what form their statements are to take.

Mr. Elliot: Have we not been repeatedly pressed to state whether self-determination would eventually be applied, and would it not have been impossible to bring forward any proposal which did not answer that question? While all of us, in every part of the House, would deplore partition in itself, surely self-determination is obviously one of the solutions, or one of the ends, to which the statement must lead. Our attitude towards that is implicit in any authoritative statement by the Government. As I understand—my right hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong—what is being envisaged is, in fact, the full concession of Enosis with Greece of a large portion of Cyprus and, in those circumstances, a statement as to the position of the minority was inevitable if a full and authoritative statement was to he made here.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, Sir. I think that my right hon. Friend has expressed the situation.

Mr. Philips Price: Does not the Secretary of State realise the extraordinary difficulty of partitioning the island of Cyprus in such a way as to have the Greeks in one part and the Turks in another? While entirely agreeing with him about the necessity for protecting and guaranteeing the position of the Turkish minority there, may I ask him whether he has considered other methods besides partition? Has he not considered the possibility of keeping the island a unit, say, under United Nations mandate, with this country, Turkey and Greece taking part in the administration, or something like that? Has he not considered that, rather than committing himself right away now to partition?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I hope that the hon. Member, whose interest in these problems I recognise and whose knowledge of Turkey, in particular, has been of great assistance to me, as, also, to the


House, will realise that partition is envisaged as one of the possible solutions, so to speak, at the end of the tunnel. It is not a suggestion that there should be partition now. If the Constitution works very well, and the people of Cyprus find in it an opportunity to express themselves as a unit, then, when the chance comes to ask them what they want to do, they may well decide to continue as they are. I would beg all hon. Members who know the seriousness of this problem to encourage in every way the chance to give this Constitution a fair start, and then, it being given a fair start, quite surprising results may happen as a result of the eventual exercise of their right of self-determination.

Mr. Teeling: Will my right hon. Friend remember a small but very loyal community in Cyprus, not Turkish and certainly not Greek, but which comes from Asia Minor? I refer to the Maronite community. Can he say whether the six members reserved will include one with responsibility for the protection of the Maronites? In view of the fact that they are scattered all over Cyprus, what will happen to them if there is to be partition?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, Sir. Of the six members who will be nominated by the Governor to the Assembly, one will be specially charged with representing and looking after Maronite interests.

Mr. Dugdale: Will the right hon. Gentleman not agree that it is of the utmost importance that there should be a full discussion of these proposals in Cyprus? Does he, therefore, agree that one of the best methods for such a discussion is through the Press, and, if so, will he see that the freedom of the Press is restored in Cyprus at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I hope that the House noticed that yesterday the Governor of Cyprus was able to make very considerable relaxations of the Emergency Regulations. I detest being responsible, and so does he, for Emergency Regulations of any kind. The sooner we can see them all swept away the better pleased we all shall be, the Governor and Her Majesty's Government. Among the regulations which we dislike intensely are any limitations of freedom

of expression. If this Constitution is given a fair chance, and the people of Cyprus respond as we hope they will, and they are encouraged from outside to do so, then we can, I hope, very soon bring Ito an end all these symbols of emergency.

Major Wall: Is not the statement we have just heard a great act of faith in the good sense of the Greek Cypriot cornmunity, who will form the very large majority of the Assembly? May I ask my right hon. Friend to pay a little more attention to the Turkish minority? For instance, are they to have a Minister? Further, could he say something about the British minority, whether they are to be represented on the Legislative Council? Finally, may I ask him about the British schools, the teachers' training college and the technical schools which are now going up? Under whose control will they be?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I was told, when talking to the Archbishop and, incidentally, in this House, that the only thing really seriously dividing people was the question of the Greek elected majority. No hon. Member from the other side of the House has commented on the fact that the inescapable consequence of Lord Radcliffe's recommendations, as I read them, is that there will be a Greek elected majority. It would, I think, have been consistent with a desire to find a settlement if some hon. Member opposite had referred to that fact.
The Turkish rights are very carefully defined. They include provision for a Turkish Minister, who will be a member of the Cabinet; they include six members of the Assembly, and the most rigid protection of their interests both against discrimination by law and discrimiation in administration. I hope that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen will read those provisions very carefully.
As regards the rights of the by no means inconsiderable or unimportant English population, one of those nominated members will be chosen by the Governor to represent that very important interest.

Mrs. L. Jeger: While welcoming the fact that one of the obstacles to the previous settlement—the question of the Greek majority—is met by these proposals, may I ask whether it is not


true that the biggest stumbling block all along has been the question of self-determination? Does the statement that we have had this afternoon really take the matter any further? Is it not still left with Her Majesty's Government alone to be the judge of when this principle may be put into effect? Can we not have some hope that Cyprus will be considered as part of a new policy in the Middle East and the ending of what we have shown to be an impossible unilateral Middle East policy?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As I said, when the international and strategic situation permits, we will review the application of self-determination. If the situation has obviously and dramatically changed, it would be quite impossible for any British Government to pretend that it had not changed.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: My right hon. Friend has rightly, in my view, and in the view, I think, of many hon. Members on this side, stressed that if and when the application of self-determination takes place, it obviously follows that we should, in advance, take the necessary protective steps concerning the Turkish minority. Can my right hon. Friend also say that it will equally be a fundamental purpose at that time, after the application of self-determination takes place, also to safeguard British interests in the island, both strategic and otherwise, afterwards?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes. Sir, most assuredly.

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: May I ask the Secretary of State three questions? First, is he taking any new initiative to try to secure a cessation of acts of violence, on both sides, in Cyprus now as a preliminary to discussions on Lord Radcliffe's proposals? Secondly, while welcoming this very belated recognition of the fact that the Archbishop of Cyprus is an indispensable factor in any political situation, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman where the consultations with the Archbishop will take place, whether he will give the names of the emissaries whom he has sent to meet him and whether he will now lift the ban on communication with the Archbishop, which appears to have applied to everybody, except officials of the Colonial Office, including hon. Members of this House?
Finally, is the Secretary of State aware that his threat of possible partition in the future may be interpreted as meaning that the British Government are not really convinced that Lord Radcliffe's proposals are the basis of a possible settlement? In this respect, did Lord Radcliffe consider the possibility of partition? If so, what were his recommendations as to the feasibility of any form of partition in Cyprus?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Member asked me what was Her Majesty's Government's initiative in this matter to help to bring an end to the bloodshed. The statement I have made this afternoon should represent a very considerable contribution towards that end Secondly, the hon. Member asked where the consultations with Archbishop Makarios would take place. The answer is that they will take place in the Seychelles, where the Archbishop is now detained.
As to communications, I have myself told the hon. Member that I am quite prepared to pass on his Christmas greetings to the Archbishop, but other letters —long letters and letters which when they are received may mean quite different things from what some of them might generally be thought publicly to mean—not by the hon. Member—must clearly be subject to censorship in the ordinary way.
Thirdly, the hon. Member asked about Lord Radcliffe and partition. When he reads the Report, he will see that Lord Radcliffe expressly says that he was asked to draw up a Constitution for Cyprus under British sovereignty. He was not asked to consider or envisage the possibility of an eventual change of status.

Mr. Callaghan: Can the Colonial Secretary go a little further concerning the status of the Archbishop in this matter? It is all very well to send him Christmas cards, or even a copy of the Radcliffe Report. What is surely of value to Her Majesty's Government and to public opinion, in Cyprus, in Greece and in this country, is that we should know the Archbishop's views. Can we be quite clear that there will be a two-way traffic in this respect, and that the Archbishop will be free to express his opinion upon Lord Radcliffe's proposals?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Certainly, Sir. It would be rather fruitless and a waste of


time for all concerned if either the visits of Lord Radcliffe's secretary and the officer of the Governor of Cyprus, who will arrive there tomorrow—

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: Who are they?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: —or any later visits by anybody else, should result in the Archbishop not being able to say what he thought about the proposals. It is, however, quite another matter for me to say, which I am not prepared to say, or to accept, that we—either the Government or the Governor—should restart negotiations with the Archbishop.

BILL PRESENTED

AERIAL ADVERTISING

Bill to restrict the use of aircraft for commercial advertising and purposes of propaganda, presented by Mr. Braine; supported by Mr. Partridge, Mr. John Harvey, and Mr. Kenneth Thompson; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday 15th February and to be printed. [Bill 40.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on any Motion for the Adjournment of the House moved by a Minister of the Crown exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House) for One hour after Ten o'clock.—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — HOUSE OF COMMONS DISQUALIFICATION BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.5 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Just over a year has elapsed since my right hon. and gallant Friend the Home Secretary moved the Second Reading of a Bill with the same Title as this one. On that occasion he acknowledged, and I would like to repeat that acknowledgment now, the debt of gratitude which we owe to the Herbert Committee of 1941, upon whose recommendations the first version of the Bill—and, indeed, much of the present version—was based.
The House will recall that the unusual step was taken of committing that Bill to a Select Committee of the House and, subject to a few points of detail to which I shall refer later, it is the Bill as reported by that Committee which is now before the House.
I am sure that the House would wish me to pay the warmest of tributes to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) who was Chairman of that Committee, and to the other right hon. and hon. Members who served with him on it. I feel sure that it will be agreed on both sides of the House that high praise and our gratitude are due to them for the care, patience and thoroughness with which they went about the very difficult task entrusted to them and that the present Bill, which is the product of their labour, is, in many respects, a marked improvement on its predecessor.
If I may speak for myself, my only regret is that there was not time for the Bill to be passed into law last Session. That this was not possible is, of course, no fault of the Select Committee. I should also like to say how much Her Majesty's Government appreciate the despatch with which the Select Committee completed its work.
As I have said, we have thought it right to reintroduce the Bill in almost the identical terms in which it was reported


last July. There are a few very minor amendments, one example of which is the removal from Part II of the First Schedule of the references to the Road Haulage Disposal Board, which, as the House will remember, was abolished in August. At a later stage, we may wish to suggest a number of detailed Amendments for the consideration of the House, but I am happy to be able to say that Her Majesty's Government gladly accept all the main recommendations of the Select Committee.
The Bill now before the House differs in three important respects from the version which was submitted to the Committee last February and the version on which the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) did a great deal of work. It is right that I should say something about the three important respects in which this Bill differs.
The first and, perhaps, most important, of these is that the Bill substitutes a detailed list of individual disqualifying offices for the former reference to
paid offices or places under the Crown".
The object of this change is to avoid the sort of problem we have been so troubled with in recent years. It should now be possible for any Parliamentary candidate or Member to look at the list of disqualifying offices enacted in the Schedule and made available by virtue of Clause 5 (4) of the Bill and to see quite clearly whether he has incurred, or is likely to incur, disqualification by the acceptance of an office.
The list, as the House will see, will be kept up to date by Order in Council made in pursuance of a Resolution under Clause 5 of the Bill, and perhaps it will be for the convenience of the House if I explain now that we shall later wish to suggest Amendments designed to simplify and improve this Clause, a Clause which is, perhaps, open to certain criticisms in its present form. As it stands it would not permit the transfer of offices from one part of the First Schedule to another; nor would it permit any addition to the Schedule of any office now in suspense which is revived after the Bill becomes law.
As the Select Committee pointed out in its Report, under this Clause
… substantive changes in the constitutional law of the country will be able to be effected without the need for a new statute.

The Government agree with the Select Committee, however, that, in the absence of any satisfactory alternative, the Bill must include some provision on these lines if we are to enjoy the manifest advantage of specifying the disqualifying offices, and we think that the provision whereby an affirmative Resolution of this House must precede any Order in Council will, in practice, constitute an adequate safeguard against improper changes of the constitutional position. It is for this reason that we shall later wish to suggest another Amendment, providing that all Orders in Council under the Clause shall be subject to affirmative Resolution procedure.
The House will also note that the Committee has recommended that in future the onus shall be placed on candidates of satisfying themselves before nomination that they are not subject to any disqualification. The relevant provision, the House will see, is in Clause 12 of the Bill.
I have spoken so far of the first important change, namely, the change to a list of disqualifying offices. The second important respect in which this Bill differs from the Bill introduced last Session is the repeal, without replacement, of the existing statutory disqualifications of certain contractors and pensioners. This is achieved by Clause 9 of the Bill. I think that the House will agree that this is a bold step.
Perhaps the House will allow me the indulgence of quoting from the Memorandum which I submitted to the Select Committee in which I described—I hope accurately—the provisions relating to contractors in the following terms:
… the provisions are, in their present form, indefensible: their effect in law is obscure; and their effect in practice is both anomalous and absurd.
The Government agree, therefore, with the Committee's dislike and rejection of the anomalous and archaic provisions of the present law, and we agree, too, with the Select Committee's conclusion that comprehensive provisions dealing with them would be both impracticable and unnecessary. The House will have seen from the evidence given to the Select Committee by the Clerk of the House that no case involving any sort of scandal in connection with a Government contract has, so far as is known, occurred during the last one hundred years, and that


applies to all Crown contracts, whether they fell within the existing law or not
If that is so, surely this is a matter which the House can deal with itself, should any such scandal, which, in view of the past, is unlikely to arise, arise in future. I should like, therefore, to take this opportunity of saying that we accept the Select Committee's recommendations for reconsideration, with a view to early improvement, of the rules and practice of the House relating to the disclosure by hon. Members of any pecuniary interests when they are speaking or voting. The Select Committee drew attention to this, and we are now considering how best to give effect to its recommendation.
The third of the three important respects to which I referred is that the Bill no longer disqualifies members of the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces upon their embodiment or recall. We welcome this change for two reasons, both of them, the House may agree with me in hoping, theoretical reasons: the first, that it removes any possibility of abuse of the power of selective recall; the second, that it would leave membership of the House unaffected in the early stages of an emergency when Parliament would be particularly busy with such tasks as emergency legislation.
Before I turn to the other detailed provisions of the Bill I should like to say a few words about Clause 1 (4). This Clause embodies the recommendation of the Select Committee, expressed in paragraph 4 of its Report, that the Bill should not adopt what it called the reverse method of disqualification, that is to say, the provision, common in a large number of Acts of Parliament, disqualifying Members of this House from holding certain offices instead of disqualifying the holders of those offices from membership of this House.
We agree with the Committee's recommendation for a number of reasons. One of them is that if the disqualification attached to offices by definition instead of by name it would operate to nullify appointments made by virtue of the Royal Prerogative, for example, by a Royal charter constituting a new body corporate and making the first appointments of its officers.
That objection would not, of course, apply if the disqualification, the reverse

disqualification, were effected, as it is in this Bill, by listing the offices concerned, but even so that system would be of only limited application. It could scarcely, for example, apply to a serving soldier since it would enable him to obtain his discharge by obtaining election to this House.
Perhaps a still more cogent argument against that suggestion is this, that it would make it impossible for this House to exercise its present jurisdiction to decide questions of disqualification. It is one thing for this House to say that one of its Members should be indemnified for acting as such. It is quite another thing for it to indemnify a man for his acts in the performance of functions outside the House; and if we adopt the system of reverse disqualification we could scarcely give the House a power of the kind conferred by Clause 6 (2) to waive the consequences of an inadvertent disqualification.
I must, however, make it clear that the Government, while accepting the Committee's rejection of reverse disqualification and the embodiment of its recommendation in Clause 1 (4), do not regard the British general, or that Clause in particular, as derogating from a Minister's right to exclude active supporters of political parties from appointments within his jurisdiction.
The Bill settles the question whether the holder of a particular office may properly sit as a Member of this House; it does not settle the question whether a Member of this House may properly hold an office, and any decision on an individual's suitability to hold a particular Crown post must clearly remain the responsibility of the Minister concerned, who must be free if he thinks fit to exclude anyone publicly known to be an active supporter of a political party. This object will be achieved in the ordinary case by making the original appointment to the office concerned conditional upon the holder offering his resignation on being nominated as a Parliamentary candidate.
Clauses 2 and 3 have been simplified as a result of the adoption of the list system. The House may wish to consider whether Clause 10 should be retained in its present form. It was included in the Bill introduced last Session because it was appropriate to the paid office provisions


which have now been discarded. It was inserted by the Select Committee in the present Bill with a view to preventing the payment to Crown office holders of unreasonably generous expense allowances, but I submit to the House that it should perhaps consider whether it is really appropriate to include that Clause in the Bill in its present form as the Clause has no effect now, if the Bill is passed as it stands, on the question of disqualification.
The House will note that the Select Committee took the opportunity of making amendments to the Bill in what are now Clauses 7 and 15, on the lines suggested a year ago by my right hon. and gallant Friend, in order to remove any risk of conflict between the House and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council under Clause 7 and to bring the whole Bill into operation on the date of the Royal Assent.
Like the original Bill, this Bill is mainly concerned with disqualifications arising from the holding of public appointments. It does not extend to other disqualifications, such as those of aliens, bankrupts and minors. It is limited to those sources of disqualification which have proved most difficult and troublesome in practice to me as Attorney-General and to many of my predecessors and others, and particularly troublesome during the last ten years or so. I do not think it necessary to say any more in warmly commending the Bill to the House. I hope that its passage to the Statute Book will not be long delayed and when that is achieved we shall have done a great deal to clear up a very intricate and involved piece of law which has long required clarification.

4.22 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: The reason for the Bill is the long-standing anxiety of the House to avoid two things. One is undue patronage and the other is incompatibility between membership of the House and the holding of other offices or the doing of other things, an incompatibility which may be an incompatibility of duty or the physical incompatibility of being unable to perform both functions properly. But the occasion of the Bill is, I think, a considerable number of cases in recent years where persons have been elected to membership of the House and have then been found to hold

trivial offices which certainly involved no public mischief as a result of their election, but which were in fact such as to disqualify them.
The question whether offices of that kind disqualified them has often proved to be a difficult one. If it was answered in the affirmative the result has had to be proceedings of a Select Committee and of the House with which, unfortunately, by now we are only too well acquainted. The substance of the matter in every recent case has been that there was really no conceivable public mischief in the instance involved. To take one case from the other side of the House, I well remember an hon. Member who had become an auditor under the Treasury for a perfectly good charitable purpose, and received a nominal fee, far less than the charitable work he was doing, and had to be indemnified on that account.
It is because of the existence of that kind of case and the quite frequent occurrence of it that I am sure we shall all welcome the provision in the Bill, following the views of the Select Committee on this matter, to have a list instead of the type of general definition which formerly existed concurrently with the list and gave rise to most of the trouble in these cases.
It is hound to be a long list, of course, but, at any rate, it is something that a candidate can read and can see quite easily whether or not he comes within it. I cannot regard it as unreasonable that he should be compelled to do that since for a long time those who stand for local government offices have been compelled to declare, even without the existence of a list, that they were qualified to stand and accept the office. We are doing no more, though within a larger field, than has been the practice with local government elections for some time. I am sure that every right hon. and hon. Member would feel that it was a much better alternative to have to read a list carefully and satisfy themselves on that, than to have to incur the risks so often incurred in the past, sometimes with the unfortunate consequences that I have mentioned.
The second major change, to which the Attorney-General referred, was the question of reverse disqualification, as the Select Committee called it. I was a member of that Select Committee and I


have been refreshing my memory by looking through its Report and its proceedings. It is quite true that on this particular question there was a difference of opinion in the Committee, and it so happened that the members of the Committee who sit on this side of the House differed from members of the Committee who sit on the other side of the House. Nevertheless, though, no doubt, principles can be found in it, I feel that in the last analysis this is really a question of convenience of practice.
There are, no doubt, considerations of principle both ways, and there are conveniences and inconveniences of practice both ways but, as the Select Committee's Report states, this was very fully discussed by the Committee. I am not sure that it was not more fully discussed than any other question, with the possible exception of one to which I shall refer in a moment.
Certainly, a conclusion was reached, and we on this side of the House would certainly not regard the difference of opinion which arose on that occasion as a reason for dividing against the Bill. Perhaps I am speaking to some extent for myself in this, but I do not regard the distinction between the two methods as substantially more than a question of convenient practice. I agree, however, that arguments of principle can be adduced on both sides, and no doubt some of my hon. and right hon. Friends may well wish to adduce them on this occasion.
I assure the House that I shall not take long on this subject, because the general matter has been discussed before, but the third point to which I should like to refer is the question of contracts and the quite minor question of pensions. What happened about pensions was that on the evidence it became quite clear that we were dealing in this respect with a very limited class of quite small pensions and there was no possibility of mischief and remarkably little possibility of the question ever arising in practice. It was a quite minor matter.
Contracts, of course, raise serious questions, and I am well aware that there are differences of opinion on this matter. I state my own opinion in these terms: I, personally, regard the existing provisions as to disqualification on grounds of contract as, to take the words of the right

hon. and learned Gentleman himself, anomalous, indefensible and, I think he said, absurd.

The Attorney-General: Archaic.

Mr. Mitchison: I would accept all that. They arose, as the epithet "archaic" implies, from particular scandals in the eighteenth century, and the Bill which started them was called the Contractors Bill.
We have discussed all that before on the previous Bill, so I will not repeat it, but matters have now reached the absurd position that, under the law, an atomic energy station can be built by contract for the Government and—if one may take an absurdly extreme case for the sake of illustration—a single hon. Member of this House might contract to do that and not be disqualified. Yet, if he provided £110 worth of bricks to build it, or furniture to put into it, he would be disqualified. That cannot be right and the distinction arises out of the difference between the sale of goods—I think the phrase is "the sale of wares" in the old legislation—and services rendered in some form or another.
Now, services rendered are at present not covered, and considerable anxiety has been felt by some of my hon. Friends about the possibilities that this opens. They have directed their particular attention to the legal profession, of which I remain proud to be a member. At the same time, lawyers are not entitled to any particular advantages nor, on the other hand, should they be subject to any particular disabilities. The professional difficulty is, of course, notionally the same as the rather absurd and extreme instance I have just taken, that a man being a Member of this House might act as a lawyer occasion by occasion but not as standing counsel for the Government. Or a man might act as a consulting architect, or in some other professional capacity, and not thereby be disqualified.
I was much impressed on the merits of the matter by two things that emerged during the evidence given before the Select Committee. One the right hon. and learned Gentleman has already referred to, the complete absence of any occasion during the last century on which this question arose or could possibly have arisen or was supposed to arise. The second was in particular relation to the question of Crown briefs. I hope that


the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not mind my mentioning his own evidence, in page 89 of the Report of the Select Committee, which gave the exact figures of the number of Crown briefs allotted to Members of this House over a considerable period. The proportion was very small, and further figures showed that, as between the hon. and learned Members who sit on one side of the House and the other, there was clearly no discrimination.
We would all accept not only the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but also his predecessors in office, as scrupulously honest in a matter of this kind. I do not expect that it even occurs to them on which side of the House a Member is sitting but, be that as it may, it is always better for the benefit of the outside world that figures should be given and should support that contention in what seems to me to be an almost irrefutable form. That, however, is my own personal opinion, and some of my hon. Friends or hon. Gentlemen opposite may wish to indulge in the national sport of having a crack at the lawyers. There is something to he said for it. It has its advantages as well as disadvantages and it is always great fun, I hope, on both sides.

Mr. George Wigg: It is, of course, always much more financially rewarding for the lawyers than for those who chase them.

Mr. Mitchison: Not in this House, I think, and it was this House that I had in mind for the moment. Perhaps we shall be sitting in Committee later.
I turn for a minute to what I mentioned just now, to what seems to me to be the very serious side of contract; that is, that we are removing existing prohibitions. They may be anomalous and indefensible, but we are putting nothing in their place. That disturbs me, because if it were possible to substitute something practicable, I should dearly like to do it; not because of the existence or of the likely existence of any scandal in the matter. I do not believe that there has been any scandal within reasonable memory—a hundred years or so—or that there is likely to be any, but because I am very anxious—and I am sure every right hon. and hon. Member of the House is equally anxious—that we should not appear to people who do not know an

enormous amount about these somewhat technical questions—and I mean people both at home and abroad—to be opening the door to any possibility of undue patronage or to any possibility of the votes of Members of this House being influenced in that way.
I think that I can speak for all the members of the Select Committee in saying that, because of this anxiety, they searched their individual minds and consciences for a long time as to whether anything practicable could be done, not principally by way of an actual safeguard, but so as to make it quite clear what is the attitude of the House in a matter of this kind and, I repeat, to make it clear both at home and abroad. We failed to find any practicable alternative. I myself put forward an alternative of disclosure. It met with singularly little support from the rest of the Committee and I appreciate fully the strength of the objections which were raised to it. They were based mainly on the ground that it really did not do very much at the end of it all.
Be that as it may, that is a point which we shall be able to consider in Committee. If any right hon. or hon. Member of the House could suggest anything really practicable on these lines, and anything that would be fair as between one case and another in accordance with the general principles that we all have in mind, I am certain that I carry the Attorney-General with me in saying that we should all look at it with the closest attention, and sympathetically. So far, in my view, a suggestion of that kind has not emerged, though many other suggestions have been made.
I welcome most sincerely the corollary to what has been done about contracts; that is to say, the Government's acceptance of the recommendations of the Select Committee in connection with disclosure in this House. I will not go into that question now—it is hardly before us at the moment—and I think it sufficient to say that the Committee were, according to paragraph 7, in page lxvi of the Report, not altogether satisfied that the rules and practice as to disclosure were up to date, comprehensive and clear. I cordially agree with that opinion. While, again, I do not believe that there is or has been for a century any scandal in this matter, I think it most advisable that the rules should be made up to date,


comprehensive and clear, and that, where there is any doubt on the matter, we should lean on the side of disclosure rather than on the side of non-disclosure.
What struck me as significant was that, as I understood the rules and practice, the practice had gone far beyond the rules, because hon. Members themselves felt an obligation to disclose in cases where, if they had looked at the matter closely, they might well have come to the conclusion that they were under no strict obligation to do so at all. I feel certain that, there again, I should carry with me the right hon. and learned Gentleman in saying that the bias ought to be that way, and that it is, if I might pat ourselves on the back for a minute, a testimony to the feeling of the House that hon. Members have so carried it out.
Therefore, the substance of what I have to say today is that there are vary real points upon which individual opinions in the House will no doubt differ, particularly in connection with contracts—I include Crown briefs for this purpose—and perhaps also in connection with the question of reversed disqualification. However, my hon. Friends and I do not regard that second question as a sufficient reason for disputing the giving of a Second Reading to the Bill. As regards contracts and the other minor matters to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred, I understand that the Committee stage of the Bill will take place on the Floor of the House. Accordingly, those matters can be dealt with by right hon. and hon. Members by Amendments and otherwise during the course of those proceedings.
I hope that in those circumstances we may be able to dispose of this very important Bill with reasonable dispatch today. I trust that I myself shave not taken up too much of the time of the House.

4.44 p.m.

Mr. Clement Davies: I regret that more interest is not taken by hon. Members in this very important Bill. If one looks round the Chamber, one finds that the interest is very largely confined to those of us who sat upon the Select Committee. It is true that the Bill, as drafted, re-enacts to a very large extent the law as it is at present and as it has been for many generations, but it concerns a matter of great principle, namely,

the membership of this House and its composition, and I should have expected much more interest to be taken in it than apparently is taken in it judging by the attendance.
I want, shortly, to raise a point referred to by the Attorney-General and by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), namely, which is the right approach to this question. I raise it shortly for two reasons. First, I realise that we want to finish the debate fairly quickly because of the very important one which is to succeed it secondly, it is no good shutting my eyes to the fact that at present it looks to me as if I am alone in strenuously maintaining the position which I held before the Select Committee, which is that the reverse proposal is the preferable one.
There is one objection that I have to what was said by the hon. and learned Member. He seemed to think that this was a question which could be reduced to a convenience of practice. I do not think so at all. It goes much deeper than that. It is necessary to look at the origin of all this.
It began when the parties were not divided as we are today and as we have been for practically a couple of centuries. It arose in the days when there were the Monarch's Party, or the King's Party, and those who did not belong to the King's Party. Those who did not belong became frightened that in the course of time they would be in a complete minority and the House would be merely a register of the desires and wishes of the monarch of the time. That being so, they initiated, and succeeded in getting on the Statute Book, the Act of Queen Anne, by which persons holding certain offices were disqualified from being Members of the House. They realised that they had gone too far so far as old offices were concerned and that they were excluding even Ministers and would have spoilt the whole composition of the House and altered our whole Constitution, and they amended it. However, in the main, it has continued down to this day.
What does that really mean? It is that the House is subordinated to the office. The office is more important than membership of this House. I, on the other hand, take the exact contrary view. To my mind, this House is not only the most


important institution in this country, but the most important institution in the democratic world. If his House fails, then democracy fails, and the question whether this House succeeds or fails will depend largely upon the quality of its membership. Therefore, it ought to be drawing its membership from the very widest possible area. The House always gains by the experience that individual Members have had in such offices as they have held, or such work as they have been engaged in before they entered the House, or during the time they have been in the House.
That being so. I should have thought that the right approach to this was that membership of the House was the important matter, and if perchance it was felt that the holding of a particular office was incompatible with membership of the House, then it ought not to be the membership that goes, as it will be going and as it has been going. It is the office which should go. The office should be subordinate and not the membership. A Member holding an office or being offered an office which is incompatible with his membership of the House would at once realise that he could not hold that office, but could remain here and be a Member of the House.
Moreover, I should have thought that the Member himself would recognise that. A Member knows the tremendous amount of work which is put in by those who hold the same opinions as he does, and he knows the loyalty which they show towards him. When a man is offered two positions, membership of this House or an office which will be of assistance to himself, he should choose the office and reject the greatest honour that can be paid to a man, namely, that of being elected by his fellow citizens as a Member of the House of Commons.
It was for that reason, therefore, that I put forward an alternative, with the strong support of right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House—and I thought at one time that I also had with me some of the Members who sit on the other side of the House. We felt so strongly about it that everyone agreed that we should assist by getting a Bill framed in the alternative. That was produced to us, and it is well worth the study of hon. Members so that they can see that it is possible to draft that Bill and, in fact, to work it just as simply as the Bill now being presented

to us. It will be found in the first appendix printed immediately after the Select Committee's Report. There it is—a full Bill with all the Schedules and everything else.
May I, therefore, as I have said that I will be very brief, refer to the two matters of objection which were put forward by the Attorney-General, namely, the Royal Prerogative and that those who were appointed to offices by Royal Prerogative would find themselves in a difficulty. The Attorney-General himself provided the answer immediately. There is no difficulty whasoever in putting those offices which are subject to the Royal Prerogative in the Schedule in just the same way as we have already a schedule which includes, for instance, Her Majesty's judges. The other objection, that it would be depriving the House of its power over its composition and depriving it of its control over individual Members, really surprised me.
I should have thought that by this time even the House itself would realise the value of putting the composition clearly in the written constitution of an Act of Parliament and of allowing any question that arose of interpretation of that Act to be settled by Her Majesty's courts of justice.
I would remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman of the troubles which the House got into when it thought that it ought to be controlling the question of who is elected to this House and trying election petitions; but at least we had the wisdom to say that that was sheer nonsense and passed an Act of Parliament that allowed that question to be decided by the courts of justice. In the same way, it would be perfectly easy for any question arising whether a man can take an office, or whether he is to be deprived of the office, to be settled by the courts of justice. That is the point. I think that it is a sound one. I deeply regret that my colleagues did not take the same view.
While I am on that matter, may I take this opportunity, on behalf of all of us, of adding to the tribute that has been paid by the Attorney-General to the Chairman of the Select Committee, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kensington, South (Sir W. Spens), who was indefatigable and spared no pains in bringing this matter to a conclusion.
There is the principle, and it was for the reason that it could be put in that way that I, as can be seen in the Report which is set out in the appendix and in page lxvii, moved the Amendment. I moved it in the most general terms so as not to take up the time of my colleagues by going into all the details once again. I think that it was better; although I realise that if I had carried it, we would then have had to go into a considerable amount of detail and get a great number of matters changed. I thought it best, so as to bring it to the attention of the House and focus attention on this, to put it in that shortened form.
It is for that reason that I deeply regret that more support has not been given to what I consider is the true principle, namely, that this House, especially at a time like this, when democracy is on its trial, should not be attracting the best Members it possibly can from every part of the country. That office should be taking the premier position over membership of this House is, to me, the wrong principle of approach.

4.55 p.m.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: Although last Session a Bill with a similar Title to the present one received an unopposed Second Reading, I think that there is quite a considerable body of opinion which is inclined to think that it may well be possible to get rid of disqualification altogether; indeed, I myself thought that that was the view of the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies). I thought that that was included in his draft Special Report to which he has just referred. Be that as it may, although I think that all of us have a great deal of sympathy with that view, we cannot bring ourselves to accept that logical conclusion.
We can say, of course, that if membership of Parliament adversely affects a person's performance of his duties in some other post, then the right remedy is to dismiss him or to release him from that post, or simply to refrain from appointing him to it. Conversely, if a Member of Parliament fails in his duties as such because of his other work, or if he is deflected from the disinterested performance of his duties by consideration of what is generally known as patronage, then the remedy should lie

with his constituents. They can refrain from re-electing him.
No doubt these considerations are generally true but they are not universally true, and in constitutional matters it is the exceptions which are usually the most important. For example, if an official who had fallen foul of his superiors sought to enter Parliament, it might be extremely difficult to dismiss him, it might be over some controversial question, and allegations of penalisation might quite easily be made. I do not say that he would not be dismissed but it would give rise to difficulties of a sort which we should all deprecate. Again, all constituents are not always proof against electing weak and undesirable candidates. Unfortunately, nowadays, the personal character of a candidate counts for much too little in elections. I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House would agree with that proposition. Therefore, it is necessary for us to preserve some part of the law of disqualification. The principle has to be retained. That is what this Bill does.
As has been said, the Bill differs from its previous form in substituting a precise list of disqualifying offices for a general definition of such offices which was contained in the Third Schedule of the original Bill. However, it is still true that the list is founded upon certain general principles. Indeed, a great deal of the time of the Select Committee was necessarily involved in discussing what should or should not be included in the list in the light of what we thought those principles should be. Reference to the principles is made in page lxiv of the Committee's Report:
… Your Committee have recognised that certain offices are incompatible with membership of the House of Commons, sometimes for physical reasons, in cases where a person literally cannot be in two places at once, and sometimes because of a conflict of duties.
That definition is somewhat vague and somewhat incomplete.
We certainly had other considerations when we came to formulate what is now the First Schedule to the Bill. It does not very much matter what is said in the Report itself because we have produced the Schedule and it is the Schedule which we have to approve or disapprove. However, the principle on which that Schedule was drawn up will be of the greatest importance to Clause 5.
As the House knows, it is Clause 5 which provides for the amendment of the Schedule and that amendment can be made by a simple Resolution of the House of Commons. I was glad to hear the Attorney-General say that he intended to propose certain Amendments. Even so, it will still remain possible, without legislation and merely by the use of Resolutions, to amend the law so that any office under the Crown can be made to disqualify the holder from membership of the House.
Of course, the expression "Office under the Crown" is nowhere defined and, as we know from past experience, is capable of very wide definition. Therefore the power to amend a part of the Constitution by Resolution will be very wide indeed. It is a power not only to disqualify, but to qualify, because under Clause 5 it will be equally possible to take certain offices out of the Schedule; in other words, to qualify for membership of the House those who would now be disqualified if the Bill became law immediately.
I am in no sense criticising the machinery of Clause 5. That sort of machinery is absolutely essential if we are to proceed by way of a precise list and not as originally proposed in the Bill introduced last Session. I am sure that that is right. I am saying that it is of the utmost importance that we should be quite clear what will be the principles in accordance with which that machinery will be applied.
That machinery will not be for occasional use, but something which is constantly used. Nowadays we constantly see a multiplication of State activity and, whichever party is in power, we shall see a continuation of that sort of activity, a continuation of the creation of offices which it may be desirable to make offices which disqualify the holder from membership of Parliament. No doubt after Clause 5 has been used a number of times, a certain case law will be built up, but it is of great importance that when we begin to operate the Clause and begin to build up the case law, we should be clear that it is laid on firm foundations.
It was for that reason I moved an Amendment to the Report which is set out in page lxviii. The Amendment would have read:

borne in mind four general considerations, namely:—

(1) that the duties falling to be performed by the holders of certain offices or appointments are incompatible with participation in active politics because the holders ought to be free from any suspicion of bias or prejudice;".
That, of course, refers primarily to judicial offices:
(2) that the duties falling to be performed by the holders of certain offices or appointments demand such a degree of responsibility for decisions on matters of public policy that., if such holders sat in the House of Commons, they would be in an embarrassing position vis-à-vis the responsible ministers,—
that refers primarily to civil servants and to holders of offices in national boards, etc.—
(3) that the holders of certain offices or appointments may be required to perform duties which are incompatible, as regards either time or place or both, with membership of the House of Commons.
The obvious example is a Regular soldier, someone serving in the forces:
(4) that the power of financial patronage on the part of the Executive, even though not abused, is capable of placing members tinder undue or unfair influence.
One or more of these considerations is generally present in the case of any public office or appointment, but Your Committee has nevertheless not thought it necessary that the holder should be disqualified in every case: the criterion which they have applied is whether or not there is a substantial degree of incompatability in each case having regard to all the above considerations.
I have read the Amendment to the House because it is of the highest importance that the House should have in mind that there are definite principles which must he applied, and that it is not open and should not be open to pick and choose these offices as we please. If we do, in time no doubt the tendency will be to warp the Constitution in just the kind of way which the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery fears.
The Committee itself preferred more general words. I think that it is true to say that it did not reject my Amendment because of what it contained. I hope that when the Government come to take the initiative in formulating their policy about Clause 5, they will either accept some such principles as I have stated, or, if not, will themselves formulate principles and firmly adhere to them.

5.8 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I hope that the speeches will not be confined to members of the Select Committee. I therefore apologise for following two other members of the Committee.
First I would join with the Attorney-General and the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) in saying how much the Committee owed to the self-sacrificing work of its Chairman, who must have given up an enormous amount of time in getting some of these issues put before us so simply that we could deal with them with reasonable dispatch, long as was the time that we took. I very much doubt if we could have completed the job during the last Session unless we had had the great advantage of his assistance in that way.
I differed on a great many points from the decisions of the Committee, and mainly on the question of contracts. May I follow the bad example of the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) by reading an Amendment that I moved, and which will be found on page 1xx of the Report of the Select Committee? I voted against the deletion of the original Clause dealing with contracts, and was the only member of the Committee who did so. I thought that if we left it in, the Government might be compelled to face the issue, whereas by leaving it out and apparently saying that it did not matter, we relieved the Government of the responsibility.
I moved an Amendment to paragraph 6 of the Chairman's Report, and was supported in doing so by my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles), in the following terms:
Nevertheless, the high reputation at home and abroad of the House of Commons for disinterestedness and incorruptibility ought not be put in jeopardy by the seeming indifference to dangers that complete silence in the future law with regard to contracts between the Government and government departments and members might he taken to imply. In the event of the repeal of the existing archaic and anomalous law being enacted, Your Committee recommend that the immediate attention of the House should be given to the framing of legislation to deal (in the light of modern commercial, trade and professional conditions and practices) with the situation thus created.
I understand that the Government propose to go some part of the way to meeting the points raised there by alterations of the rules and customs of the House

with regard to disclosure. I am not quite sure how to deal with the customs of the House.
During a short stay in America I was struck by the number of occasions on which people interested in public affairs referred, without any inquiry on my part, to what they regarded as the superior standards of this country in the matter of incorruptibility in public affairs, compared with what prevails over there. For instance, there has recently been elected to the State Legislature of Massachusetts a gentleman who, during his previous term of office in that State Legislature, was convicted of making out false Income Tax returns. I am sure that the standards obtaining here would have meant that not only would this House have regarded him as unsuitable but that any constituency would have regarded him as unsuitable to stand for election again.
This standard that we have maintained can quite easily be lowered, in the altered circumstances that arise through the creation of joint stock companies and similar arrangements. One of the weak features of the previous Bill was the way in which it would have been easy by evasion, and by the formation of companies in which a person would not have a controlling interest but would be very near to having it, through quite obvious devices, to drive not merely a coach-and-four but a modern express train through the Bill in regard to this matter.
I hope that the Government will have some regard for this matter. I welcome the fact that they have gone a little further than the Committee, and that they propose to bring something before the House which will have regard to the altered circumstances of the House when the old law of contracts, ridiculous and anomalous as it was, will no longer be part of our statute law.
I hope that when a case of suspicious conduct by an hon. Member is brought before the House it will be possible for something other than discussion to take place, something more definite than anything which appears likely at the moment. Merely to discuss a particular contract and a particular Member seems, in the light of the circumstances of the day, to open up an endless possibility of Select Committee inquiries into the conduct of Members, the kind of Committee that


sat, let us say, to consider the Marconi allegations a good many years ago. In the end it certainly did not reflect any great credit on the House, because it was suggested that one lawyer on the Committee was briefed by some of the people whose conduct was under investigation. I hope that there will be something that will enable such a matter to be decided not by a Select Committee of this House but by the courts, for the reason that was given by the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery with regard to the old practice of election petition.
I am strongly in favour of what is known as the reverse disqualification. I do not intend to labour this at any length because my views were admirably and succinctly stated by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I know there was some feeling among the lawyers, although it was not shared by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that we might have the case of a High Court judge being returned to this House as a Member without anybody having noticed it—neither his electors, the Government or the judiciary. He might go on sentencing people to death and dealing with highly complicated contracts in civil law for a couple of years before it was discovered that he was a judge of the High Court who had been accidentally elected to Parliament. That seems to be stretching matters a very long way.
There might be cases of minor posts held by people dealing with, say, unemployment benefit, but I am certain that the resources of civilisation are sufficient to enable such an unusual state of affairs to be dealt with. The list should be available and will be available in Government Departments. If they found that a candidate for Parliament on their list of members of any semi-official committee had failed to read the list, one could expect that either before the Election they would see the list of candidates, or certainly upon the Election the person concerned would be informed, if the reverse disqualification existed, that he had ceased to hold office because it was the subject of reverse disqualification.
I sincerely hope that during the Committee stage we may be able to get this matter dealt with. After all, the Chairman's Report was carried only by three votes to two against the Report of my

right hon. and learned Friend, and he and I were the two who so voted. I do not want to make any comparisons with other people, but it seems to me that in a case, where two Privy Councillors, not necessarily always in agreement, came down on one side, their opinion might be given a little weight when it comes to a discussion in the House.
As one who has had to deal, in one way or another and on one side of the House or the other, with a good many of these cases in recent years, may I say that I hope that this will mean the end of the petty annoyances which good citizens elected to this House have had to endure in recent years because of their discharge of some public duty which did not appear to be in any way detrimental to their office as a Member of this House. I trust that before Elections. Members of Parliament, candidates and party agents will examine the list, and the positions occupied by people who are candidates.
I proposed the Clause which had been put down by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) relating to lawyers. I listened to what was said about that proposal by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr., Mitchison). I remain quite unabashed by what he said. It is a good thing for a dog to have fleas, because it enables the, animal occasionally to forget that he is a dog. I hope that when on occasions lawyers in this House are subjected to criticism from those of us who are not lawyers, they will realise that criticising lawyers is not so much a national sport as a national duty, and that it will give them an opportunity to remember that they are very much of the same flesh as the rest of us. I still think that my hon. Friend's Clause was sound, and should the opportunity occur, I hope to join my name with his and put it down again for consideration during the Committee stage discussions.

5.23 p.m.

Mr. John Parker: I wish to associate myself with the congratulations extended to the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) on the way in which he presided over the Select Committee. Apart from the one particular issue which has been discussed, the question of the


reverse disqualification, the voting was always across the floor. On no other occasion was voting on party lines; for that Committee was dealing with House of Commons problems. Party considerations did not enter into the discussions at all. Their successful outcome owed a great deal to the chairmanship of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
As a Member of the Select Committee, I certainly say that this Bill is a much better Measure than the one which was before the House last Session. It has been enormously improved as the result of the Committee discussions. We tried to make the position of the law as clear as possible to anybody desiring to stand for Parliament, and in doing that we also trial to remove as many disqualifications as we could. We used a toothcomb in going through all the possible jobs which might lead to disqualification and we cut out as many as we could. I am certain that was the right way to approach the matter. We endeavoured to make it as easy as possible for as many people as possible to enter the House of Commons, and to remove any troublesome disqualifications which might prevent them from doing that.
I do not consider, however, that we have done all that is required to be done. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) said that he would like to see as many people as possible in the House of Commons from the whole range of the nation, and that they should be disqualified only if there existed a special reason for that being done. We have tackled that problem in part but there are two points which at some time will have to be faced and which have not been dealt with in this Bill.
I wish to refer first to that hoary question of payment of Members. If we are to have the use of all the talent available in the nation the problem of a satisfactory payment to Members must be resolved. Secondly, it should be made as easy as possible for individuals working for private firms to be able to become candidates for Parliament without there being an undue number of obstacles placed in their way. I suggest that sooner or later some kind of code must be drawn up and operated; that all firms employ-

ing, shall we say., more than 500 people should enable their employees to stand for Parliament and be able to get their jobs back if they are defeated at a subsequent Election.
I do not think that in the case of small firms we could insist on such an obligation, but I consider that the general practice now observed by local authorities like the London County Council and organisations like British Railways should become general. They, allow people to stand for Parliament and as their normal turnover of staff is large they can make arrangements to take them back again into employment if they are defeated in an Election. I think that some such code should be drawn up for this purpose similar to that which obtains in regard to National Service at present. It should be accepted by industry as a whole and thus enable ordinary men and women wishing to take part in public life to be in a position to do so without detriment to their normal career.
There are two small points which are not dealt with in this Measure but which will have to be dealt with at some time. I am sorry that the Committee did not deal with them. One is that the opportunity should be given to persons succeeding to a peerage to be able to continue to sit as Members of this House, if they so wish. That problem does not arise very often, although there have been one or two occasions recently when it has done. It may arise again in the future, and I think that there should have been a Clause included in the Bill to enable Peers to renounce their right to sit in the House of Lords and to retain their seats in this House, if they so desire.
In the Committee I raised the point about the need to clear away the anomalies regarding clergymen becoming Members of Parliament, and I wish to refer to it again today. I note that the Manchester Guardian, in reviewing our Report, took the point of view that it was a pity that we had not cleared up this matter. I am not enthusiastic about the election of a large number of clergy as Members of this House, but if those of some denominations can become Members I think that the opportunity should be given to all. There exist anomalies in this matter in our present law, particularly with regard to the Church of England. It is in order for


an Anglican clergyman in Wales to be elected to this House but he cannot be elected if he holds a benefice in this country, or in Northern Ireland, or, apparently, in Scotland.
Under the Welsh Disestablishment Act it is in order for an Anglican clergyman to take a curacy in Wales for a few months and then to be elected as a Member of this House, so that an Anglican clergyman can get round the law, if he wishes to do so. Owing to an oversight on the part of Gladstone, when the Irish Church was disestablished Parliament did not remove the disqualification against Anglican clergymen of the Church of Ireland being elected Members of this House. The position would be very awkward if an Anglican clergyman holding a benefice in Southern Ireland were suddenly to be elected to this House.
An ordinary citizen of the Republic of Ireland can vote in this country and can sit in this House if he happens to he elected, but what is the position of an Anglican clergyman from Southern Ireland? We had a recent decision in the MacManaway case. From that we know that a clergyman holding a benefice in Northern Ireland cannot sit here, but we might well have difficulty in the case of a clergyman from Southern Ireland. The disqualification of clergy of the Roman Church is a hang-over from the anti-Catholic legislation of the past. I suggest that it is a great pity that we did not take the opportunity to sweep away all these anomalies at this time when we are removing others, especially as, when we had a special inquiry in the MacManaway case, it was laid down in the Report on that case that it was desirable not to deal with it as a special case but that it should wait over until the law as a whole was revised. Therefore, when we looked at the law as a whole, we ought to have dealt with these anomalies. I hope that the Government will treat these matters sympathetically if they are raised in Committee.
In conclusion, I wish to say that I consider that the Bill is a very big improvement, and I hope that it will speedily be put on the Statute Book.

5.31 p.m.

Mr. George Wigg: I apologise for addressing the House, especially as I am not a Privy Councillor, not a

member of the Select Committee and not a lawyer. I feel that it is almost out of order for me to venture to speak, but I have some responsibility for the Bill.
I did not intend to speak until I heard the Attorney-General mention the word "principle". When I heard him mention that word it brought back to my mind the circumstances in which the Bill came into being. On 22nd July, 1955, a Friday be it noted, the House of Commons Disqualification Bill was put down as the second Order, and it was the intention of the Government—and may I say their hope—that the Bill should slip through "on the nod".
Despite protests through what are called the usual channels, the Government, so high was their regard for principle in the composition of the House of Commons, persisted in the attempt to get the Bill through by those dubious underground methods. But, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, there are ways, and the ways were exercised, and the Government did not get their Bill "on the nod". On 9th November, 1955, they were forced to do what they ought to have done in the first instance. They were forced to have a full-dress debate on the principles upon which the Bill is based.
We had that debate, and subsequently the Government discovered that there was even more in the matter than they thought. Indeed, sonic hon. Members opposite discovered that it was a Bill of high constitutional importance. They did not think so on 22nd July, but by 9th November they had become converted to the fact that this was a matter of high constitutional importance. I will not quote what they said, but their names and statements are to be found in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
We had a full-dress debate, and the Bill was going forward to the Committee stage, when the Government found that that stage was likely to be rather prolonged. It became inconvenient, judged from the point of view of Parliamentary time, so they remitted the Bill to the Select Committee. Now it has come back and, without a word about the past history, the Attorney-General gets up, pats himself on the back and says that this is a better Bill than the one that first saw the light of day on 22nd July. Of course it is, but that is not due to hon. and right hon. Members opposite; it is due to me.
If I had my way the next edition of the Bill would be even better than this one, because I do not think very much of this.
I looked at the composition of the Select Committee. Of course, it would be grossly out of order for me to comment on the composition of the Select Committee, but if it is a national sport to chase lawyers I would say that a lot of lawyers were run to ground on that Committee. They were there in full force. I do not mind if every lawyer in the House earning £10,000, £15,000 or £30,000 a year has all the preferment he wants. The Attorney-General, the Home Office and all the Government Departments can give every lawyer every brief he wants. All I say is that if they have all this preferment the public should know. Contracts can be given to any of these hon. Gentlemen so long as it is known. Then the public can choose.
What I object to is the giving to hon. Members of this House of recorderships which enable them to deprive other citizens of their liberty, when hon. Members know in their heart of hearts that the persons who have been given these jobs are quite unfitted for the posts. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I said it on the Second Reading of the previous Bill, and I repeat it now. It would be unfair for me to mention names, but there are hon. Gentlemen who hold recorderships which I assert they would never have got had they not been Members of the House of Commons, yet these recorderships enable them to deprive other men of their liberty. To apply my standard of judgment, I would not make them unpaid lance-corporals. That is what I think of them.
It is quite wrong that membership of the House of Commons should give to one particular class—the lawyers—recorderships which they would never have got had they not been Members, because obviously it is testing human nature to the very breaking point. Do hon. Members think that in the course of the history of this House of Commons there have not been hon. Members whose voices have not been muted, whose opinions have not been influenced, by the thought that one day if they kept quiet they would get a Government brief?
Let me give the example of one of my friends—I use the word "friend" in an unparliamentary but in a very sincere

sense. I refer to Mr. Geoffrey Bing. How many briefs did he get when he was a Member of this House? Any? Yes, he got one in the MacManaway case. They could not help that; but was that because Mr. Geoffrey Bing was not a good lawyer? Of course it was not. He happened to be awkward, so he did not get any jobs. That is the kind of influence to which I object.
I object even more to this fantastic, hyprocritical use of the word "principle." Let us look again at the question of the clergymen. What principle is involved there? It may be said that way back in antiquity there was some principle known to our forefathers which made them decide, in their wisdom, that it would be improper for clergymen of the Church of England to sit in this House. What are the facts? I beg the pardon of the House, because I propose to quote from a speech which I made myself. On a previous occasion I said that:
In 1801. the Government of the day under Prime Minister Addington was most anxious, in his own words, not to 'diminish the purity and impart the independence of the House of Commons'."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th November, 1955; Vol. 545, c. 1897.]
So he came to the House of Commons and got a Resolution through to upset the election of the well-known Radical, the Rev. Horne Tooke, who had been elected for Old Sarum. He got him disqualified because he did not want him in the House of Commons, and only for that reason. I hold no brief for the Rev. Horne Tooke or the Rev. Tookes of the present day. I want to see in the House of Commons not "yes men", but men of strong opinion. If clergymen can persuade a sufficient number of the electorate to send them here, the House of Commons should have as many Church of England clergymen or any other kind of clergyman as are sent. But if we keep them out, let us not say that we are acting in the name of principle merely because we have not got the guts or because it is inconvenient to make the alteration.
Look at the hypocrisy involved in this. At the other end of the corridor legislation is carried out and influenced by the bench of bishops, so obviously there is nothing against Anglican clergymen as such. But, as was said by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), it does not make it right that because bishops should sit there Anglican clergymen should come here. But if Anglican


clergy cannot come here bishops should not sit there. All I am saying is that it is rather straining logic or integrity to argue that it is some great principle which keeps Anglican clergy out of the House.
I want to see a House of Commons which is vigorous, which reflects the life of the nation, and which is in no sense a collection of "yes men". I do not indulge in the national sport of chasing lawyers, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) puts it. I do not value lawyers enough to treat them as an object of sport. They have their place in their offices, or even on the bench, and they can indulge in honest toil, letting the six-and-eightpences roll in. But I object to a House of Commons organised to suit the convenience of the legal profession. I should be out of order to go into this matter in detail now, but before many weeks are out I hope to seek an opportunity of describing, perhaps not in the House of Commons but in Committee, the way in which the new pension schemes have worked out as a result of the concessions made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I shall show how they have worked out for members of the legal profession—the schemes themselves owe their origin to a deputation from the legal profession—and how they have worked out for the rest of the community.
I charge nobody with doing these things consciously, but after a while they assume a certain pattern, and the Bill, if it does nothing more, illustrates an opportunity which has been lost to the House of Commons of taking steps which would bring some fresh air into the Chamber and tap new sources of membership, rather than depend upon the old ways.
There was an attempt to slip the Bill through, but it did not come off. We now have the testimony of the Attorney-General that it is a better Bill for that. There is no pressing need for the Bill, because it does not operate in this Parliament. Both sides of the House could have waited, and we could have had a full day in which to debate it. To that extent the Government are doing what people often do when in difficulties, namely, rely upon the decency of hon. Members not to filibuster or drag out the proceedings, because many hon. Members want to speak on the debate on

Hungary which follows. Perhaps I can pat myself on the back in that respect.
I notice that the Government have once again used a Parliamentary device to limit discussion on the Bill. I accept that limitation; indeed, I was not at all sure that I was going to speak, but I was provoked into doing so when the Attorney-General made no reference to the background circumstances. In Committee, perhaps, I can join with my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields —the only other radical left in the House besides myself—when, by the application of our radical principles and adherence to our radical faith, we may yet save some of the foundations of what we hope will become, in the not-too-distant future, a radical House of Commons.

5.43 p.m.

Mr. Charles Doughty: I rise as a lawyer—an unashemed one—as a member of the Select Committee, and also as a recorder. Certain things have been said about hon. Members on both sides of the House who hold offices in various parts of the country. I only wish to say that none of them—some may be here at the moment and some may not —will pay the slightest attention to what the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has said. They will treat his remarks—if I may say so without undue offence—with the contempt which they deserve.

Mr. Wigg: You have got the money, so why should you worry?

Mr. Doughty: The other thing I want to say about the hon. Member's activities on the Bill is that he put down certain Amendments after the Second Reading of the original Bill, and the Select Committee was directed to examine them. All I need say on that matter is that they did not prove attractive to the Committee and were all rejected. If he chooses to think that he brought the Bill to a conclusion he is certainly welcome to do so.
The important work of the Committee, which took a large number of sittings, was to bring up to date the law on disqualification which, for centuries past, had always held that people should be disqualified from sitting in the House for reasons which varied from time to time, according to changed conditions. Substantially speaking, the conditions in which we are operating in this House,


and will be operating until the next Parliament, are those which operated in the reign of Queen Anne.

Mr. Mitchison: I would assure the hon. and learned Member that personally, as a member of the Select Committee, I valued the observations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). I regarded the Amendments which he put down on the Order Paper as serious questions. If, on balance, they were rejected by the Committee, I none the less regarded them as constituting a really useful contribution to our discussions.

Mr. Doughty: I say at once, in reply to the hon. and learned Gentleman, that I agree with every word that he has said. I merely said that the hon. Member's suggestions did not prove attractive to the Committee, meaning, by that, the majority of the Committee. They were fully discussed and voted upon, and they were rejected. I have nothing to add upon what the right hon. Gentleman has just said, except to say that I entirely agree with it.
For the last few years the position has been very unsatisfactory. As hon. Members are aware, a number of cases have brought the old rules almost into contempt. If hon. Members had looked at the Bill, they would have seen that the greater part of it consists of Schedules. The Select Committee spent a great deal of time upon those Schedules in an endeavour to clarify the position for the benefit of those who would seek election in any future Parliament. Every one of a number of positions and offices were gone into to see which should be disqualified and which should not.
I think that all members of the Select Committee will agree that the Bill represents the best which could be done—and probably the best that ever can be done—to solve that very great difficulty. Future candidates will know that if they hold certain offices on the list they cannot stand for Parliament.
I have only two more things to say, and I shall mention them briefly because I know that hon. Members wish to discuss the next business. The first point concerns the question of contracts. I agree with hon. Members on both sides who have already expressed doubts about

removing the question of Crown and Government contracts altogether. This matter was fully discussed and it has been considered quite impossible, under modern conditions, with limited liability companies and considerations of that sort, to put in words in relation to Members who have contracts with the Crown—especially since the Crown nowadays operates in the commercial field so much more than it used to—which would really have any genuine effect.
My last point concerns the question of disclosure. My right hon. and learned Friend told us that there were to be new proposals dealing with this matter. I shall read them with great interest. Although the practice of disclosure in the House is well known, it applies only in respect of Members who speak upon a Bill. Other Members may have an interest in the matter under discussion but if they do not speak upon it they do not have to disclose that interest. If that and other difficulties can be overcome I shall certainly view the proposals with interest.
The Bill is a very great advance upon the present position. It will make the situation far clearer and enable all Members and would-be Members to know their position in the years to come, that is to say, in the years following the present Parliament.

5.50 p.m.

Sir Frank Soskice: My only excuse for intervening in this debate is that on a Bill of this importance it is perhaps appropriate that there should be a winding-up speech. As I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) I found myself able to be in cordial agreement with him about one thing, at any rate. That was that many hon. Members are anxious to take part in the debate which is to follow. The inference I draw from that is that I should make my remarks shorter than they would be otherwise.
This Bill originates from the fundamental difficulty, which has always confronted this House, particularly the lawyer Members, arising from the fact that so important a constitutional principle as we are now considering rests upon words so imprecise in their meaning as
office of profit under the Crown".


As a former holder of the office at present held by the Attorney-General, I have shared with him over and over again the difficulty of trying to attach any precise meaning to those words and of advising hon. Members whether, in the event of their undertaking office in a most valuable form of public service, they might incur the risk of bringing themselves within the scope of those words.
The words sound simple, innocent and anodyne enough, but, looking more closely at them, if one considers to what they refer, it becomes apparent perhaps that the word "office" in that context may or may not include a variety of different appointments. For example, we have had to consider before now whether membership of a panel can constitute an office. Equally, difficulty has arisen in construing the words, "of profit". Still more difficulty has constantly arisen in trying to ascertain precisely when an "office", if it is an office, "of profit", if it is of profit, is or is not held "under the Crown". I think that all hon. Members will agree that if we consider closely the implications contained in those words "under the Crown" we may well understand the difficulty which has faced lawyers in particular—and not only lawyers, but members of the public quite apart from the legal profession—who have put to themselves the question whether, in any given circumstances, those words are brought into operation.
Constantly, hon. Members and would-be hon. Members have been anxious and willing to undertake useful public service and, lest it might be held by a court that by doing so they had infringed the inhibition contained in those words, they have had to refuse to do so. As the House knows, the consequence of a wrong judgment has given rise to many indemnity Bills. It is from that initial but perplexing difficulty that the Government have now brought forward this Bill, which I think the whole House is willing to accept on Second Reading. That is not to say that, in Committee, a number of important points of principle will not be raised for further consideration later on Report and Third Reading.
Speaking for myself, while I quite recognise the extreme difficulty of drafting, I think that the elimination of reference to contract in the Bill is a subject

which will require further consideration. If I may say so, I cordially agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) that when we exclude from the provisions of the Bill reference to contracts, and put nothing in its place, we are perhaps treading on dangerous ground. On the other hand, as he pointed out very clearly in his speech, the provisions which, formerly, were in corporated in the law—indeed, I think the provisions in the Bill examined by the Select Committee—did lead to manifest absurdities. If one wished to eliminate absurdity it perhaps would be necessary to expand inordinately the scope of the words referring to contracts.
The problem of reverse disqualification has evoked some feeling in speeches made this afternoon. Quite clearly, if it is in order, that is a topic which will require reconsideration in Committee. I would not add further to what has been said on that very important point. Obviously, the House, in Committee, may desire to consider the particular offices as described in the Schedules attached to the Bill. It may desire either to leave out offices or to add others to those Schedules, or to move them from one Schedule to another. As I understand that the Committee stage of the Bill is to be taken on the Floor of the House, interesting debates will no doubt arise on the details of the Bill.
Looking at the Bill as a whole, I myself welcome its scheme. It removes the words to which I referred:
offices of profit under the Crown.
It substitutes lists of ascertained and described offices for those words. It introduces the necessary elasticity and adaptability into the Bill in Clause 5, which provides that those lists at present included in the Schedule—and, ultimately, we hope, to become part of the Bill when it is enacted—can be added to, can be altered, or diminished in number. That seems to be a very workable scheme and one which is preferable to a retention of the old definition, even if we tried to refurbish it into a new and more intelligible form.
The provision enabling the House to grant dispensation in certain cases is also an extremely useful provision, which should certainly be retained in the Bill. In cases of inadvertence it will be often—


perhaps "often" is rather an optimistic term in this context—occasionally, it will be very useful for the House to be able to grant dispensation to a Member who has inadvertently offended by transgressing the provisions of the Bill when ultimately it becomes law.
Bearing in mind the advice that I gave to myself, and which my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley gave the House, I feel that I should now bring my remarks to a close and help to make way for the very important debate that we are to have later this evening.

5.58 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I speak again, with the leave of the House, to reply to the remarks made in the course of the debate.
I listened with interest to the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) and I am grateful to him for his observations. But I am disappointed to this extent. Before he spoke I thought I had at last discovered something in common with the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), namely, that he and I were the only two hon. Members who have spoken in this debate who were not members of the Select Committee. The right hon. and learned Member has deprived me of the opportunity of saying that.
I think it true to say that the Bill has been generally well received. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth), quite rightly, drew attention to the flexible provisions for adding to and taking away from the list. Of course, that is the penalty of having a list—there must be some flexible machinery for doing that.
One of the other two topics which have been the subject of most consideration and debate was the question of reverse disqualification. The right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) put the case very forcibly for that, and was supported by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). I should like to put this argument before them for their consideration. If we had

that reverse disqualification it would be very difficult to retain Clause 6 in the Bill. The right hon. and learned Member for Newport attached great importance to the House having power to dispense with disqualification in certain cases. To dispense with disqualification for membership of this House by Resolution is a very different thing from dispensing with disqualification of a member of a board outside this House in circumstances of which the House may not be fully aware.
In regard to contracts, everyone will agree, I think, that one cannot leave the law as it is. It has either to go or to be replaced. Replacement would involve a great deal of complexity, a great deal of difficulty and would lead to a massive Bill with provisions which might not be wholly effective. That is the choice. I do not think that we are losing anything by getting rid of the archaic law on this subject. I should not like it to be thought that by abolishing that we are getting rid of the standards of conduct expected of Members of Parliament. I believe that the right answer is the opinion of this House.
As the law stands now, if a scandal arose in relation to a Government contract which did not come within the old provisions of the law, the House, I am certain, would see to it that that scandal was properly dealt with. I would much rather leave it to the House, should such an instance arise, to deal with it as it would than seek to construct a complex code which might not be wholly effective. It has to be borne in mind that we have had no difficulties over that branch of the law for a very long time.
With those observations, I hope that I shall be thought adequately to have replied to the points which have been raised. We shall have a further opportunity for discussion in Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Godber.]

Committee Tomorrow.

HUNGARY

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Godber]

6.1 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): We welcome this debate on the situation in Hungary. I know that there are many hon. Members who wish to speak, even though they are not all here at the moment, and accordingly, I shall try to confine my remarks within a certain limit of time.
The struggle in Hungary continues. There has been little change in the situation in the last two weeks. It seems that the mass deportations have stopped. There are reports of large bodies of armed resistance fighters still in the field, but I think that it is probably correct to say that most of the resistance at present is passive.
The Kadar Government have given up all attempts to come to terms and have embarked upon a campaign of severe repression aimed at breaking that resistance. They have outlawed all workers' councils above factory level and are arresting the leading members of such higher councils. House-to-house searches are going on, and reports indicate that, in Budapest at least, indiscriminate arrests are taking place all over the city.
Courts of summary jurisdiction have been set up to try persons on such charges as that of concealment of arms. They have been ordered to pass the death sentence on all found guilty. There is no appeal against the verdict of these courts, and the sentences passed are carried out within two hours.
But the spirit of the people in face of this ruthless oppression remains unshaken. Although there has been some movement back to the factories, very little work is being done, and attempts by Kadar's militia to take control of the factories have been unsuccessful. Nevertheless, the fact must be faced that the Hungarian economy is running down. The mines are reported to be flooded and the oil wells to be out of action. Obviously, there will be a substantial task of reconstruction to be done to get things going again.
There are reports of a movement of some Soviet troops out of Hungary, but I think it would be unwise to 'regard this as the beginning of a withdrawal. It may be due to the need for regrouping or to bring in fresh troops. There is no doubt that power still rests with the Soviet military commander and that Soviet troops are available in large numbers to back up Kadar's militia.
It is now eight weeks since the Hungarian people rose against the Communist tyranny. It is more than six weeks since the beginning of the ferocious attack upon them by upwards of 10 Soviet divisions. It is about five weeks since the Hungarian workers started their passive resistance and general strike. History has few parallels for the courage and endurance of Hungarian national resistance. It has been remarkable for its solidarity, its thoroughness and its versatility. By their bravery, the Hungarian people have shown not only indifference to personal danger in the face even of armoured forces, but also their utter distaste for this Communist régime imposed upon them from without.
There has been much tragedy and suffering. On the other hand, there has been inspiration and ground for hope. The idea that time is always on the side of a Communist régime, an idea which was shaken by what happened in Eastern Germany in June, 1953, has been shattered by recent events in Hungary.
As a consequence of those events, there have, of course, been serious human problems to be tackled. Her Majesty's Government have done all they can to meet the desperate situation which has been caused by these events. Here, I am speaking in a sphere which is really the responsibility of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Home Secretary. Immediate grants were made to the British Red Cross Society to enable it to begin its work in Hungary and Austria. Money has been made available to the United Nations and to the British Council for Aid to Refugees. In accordance with our national tradition, these sums have been much exceeded by voluntary contributions.
The total raised by the four principal funds now stands at £2,076,000. The Lord Mayor of London, supported by local authority appeals throughout the country, has raised £1,600,000. The British Red


Cross Society has raised £315,000, the Save the Children Fund £86,000 and the United Nations Association £75,000.
Perhaps our most important contribution has been to allow 11,500 refugees to enter this country without preliminary examination. This is a greater number than any other country except Austria has been able to take. The position, however, is that, despite the great efforts made to get refugees away from Austria to other countries—between 50,000 and 60,000 have been moved—there are still some 72,000 in Austria The flow into Austria still continues, although it has now slackened off to a rate of about 1,000 a day. The American airlift, which is designed to take 21,500 in all, is only just beginning to get under way.
It is impossible to give any firm estimate of how many of the refugees still in Austria wish to come to the United Kingdom. The experience of those on the spot is that it is probable that about 10 per cent. will express a desire to come to this country. Clearly, therefore, there is still a further contribution that we can make.
In the course of this operation, there have been certain surprises. One is the composition of the refugee parties. Many thought that the refugees would come over in families, or in groups of aged or orphans. In fact, 77 per cent. of the refugees are males, 89 per cent. of them are under the age of 38, and 67 per cent. are between the ages of 18 and 38. There have been hardly any unaccompanied children at all.
Another feature, which was not altogether expected, was the number of refugees who came to this country regarding it as a staging area to go on elsewhere. They do not want to stay here: they want to go on to one of the immigration countries overseas. As a result of the refugees being interviewed by the placing officers of the Ministry of Labour, it is estimated that more than half of those in this country want to go on to another country. No authority here places any obstacle in the way of that. However, they can only go to countries which are willing to receive them, and many receiving countries feel, not unnaturally, that the best contribution they can immediately make is to take refugees from Austria and not from this country.
At present, Canada is the only country which is taking refugees from the United Kingdom. I should like to say something about what Canada is proposing to do, because it affects the position of the refugees in this country. The Canadian authorities have already committed themselves to receive at least 10,000 Hungarian refugees in Canada before the end of January, and in the spring, when the normal requirements for labour in Canada expand rapidly, it will be possible for the Canadian authorities to increase the number of Hungarian refugees, who can be readily absorbed into the Canadian economy, and to do that rapidly, also. They are prepared to take into Canada after 1st April next—perhaps even a little earlier—up to 5,000 of the refugees now in the United Kingdom, a large number of whom, as I said, came here in the hope that it would be possible for them to go on to North America afterwards. It may be that labour conditions in Canada will justify the acceptance of more than that figure of 5,000.
The refugees so accepted will, in effect, be those who wish to go there. There is no question of special selection. I hope that when this becomes known among the refugees it will have a reassuring effect and, in particular, that it will induce them to learn English and to take employment here while they are waiting for re-emigration to Canada. Their taking of employment here will in no way prejudice their chance of going to Canada in due course.
As the congestion in the reception centres has diminished, Her Majesty's Government have decided that it will soon be no longer necessary to suspend the flow of refugees and that it will be possible to receive a further limited number. The Canadian Government's willingness to take up to 5,000 from us will, of course, make it easier for us to take about that number from Austria. Her Majesty's Government accordingly propose that the intake of refugees should be resumed early in the new year.
The precise date of the resumption and the rate of flow will be fixed in consultation with the British Council for Aid to Refugees. The matter will be kept under review from time to time. The situation in Hungary is constantly changing, and none of us can see very far ahead, but I hope that the House will agree that the actions of this country in regard to the


Hungarian refugees have been in accordance with our traditions and are actions of which we can all be proud.
I should like to pay tribute to all the voluntary bodies, which have worked with great energy, led by the Lord Mayor of London, the local authorities, the Red Cross and the British Council for Aid to Refugees. It is also right, I think, that we should pay our tribute to the great efforts made by the Austrian Government and the people of Austria to deal with this situation.

Mr. William Warbey: While the right hon. and learned Gentleman is dealing with the difficult situation in which the Austrian Government, in particular, are placed—with over 70,000 refugees still to deal with, and more coming in—can he say whether any significant proportion of the £2 million or more raised in this country is available, or is likely to be available, for the relief of refugees in Austria itself?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not think that I can, without notice, but I shall certainly see that the hon. Member is given an answer in the course of the debate.

Mr. Peter Remnant: Since they have done a very great deal in connection with the reception of these refugees, would my right hon. and learned Friend feel disposed to include the Women's Voluntary Services in his thanks?

Mr. Lloyd: Certainly. I apologise for that omission.
My right hon. and gallant Friend the Home Secretary has given me the answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey). The answer is that 33⅓ per cent. of the fund is available for use in Austria or in Hungary.
So much for the present situation in regard to the refugees.

Mr. Arthur Henderson: Does the Foreign Secretary know the number of people who have been deported by Russia?

Mr. Lloyd: No, I have no information that I can give the right hon. and learned Gentleman now. A certain amount of information has come in, and I will see

whether it can be assessed in terms of numbers.
Dealing with the future of Hungary, it is a matter of speculation as to how soon the Soviet rulers will realise that their troops have won only a pyrrhic victory, because they will not succeed in imposing on a country of 9 million inhabitants—who have behaved as the Hungarian people have—a system which it clearly has no intention of accepting. Meanwhile the Soviet Union has sustained a tremendous political defeat. The decision which it has to take is whether it proposes to hold the Hungarians down by brute force or to accept the principle of self-determintion, to which it so frequently gives lip-service, particularly in criticism of ourselves, and whether it is prepared to accept the principle of competitive co-existence.
Much has been said recently about the efficacy of United Nations action in a variety of fields. The events in Hungary have been much discussed in the United Nations. They were first raised in the Security Council on 28th October, and, after a rather protracted discussion, a Resolution calling upon the Soviet Union to desist from intervention and to withdraw their troops was vetoed on 3rd November. The voting was 10 in favour, with one abstention —Yugoslavia— and the vote against was that of the Soviet Union, which amounted to the veto.
At a special session of the General Assembly, on 4th November, the abortive Security Council Resolution was put forward again, with the addition of clauses requesting the Secretary-General to investigate, to appoint observers and to report back with suggestions of measures to end Soviet intervention. All members of the United Nations were called upon to assist him. That Resolution was passed by 50 votes to 8 against, with 15 abstentions.
On 9th November, two further Resolutions were passed. The first expressed deep concern at the non-observance of the Soviet Union of the previous Resolution. This was passed by 48 votes to 11, with 16 abstentions. The second Resolution on that day called upon the Soviet Union to cease illegal action against the Hungarian people, and dealt with the relief measures for refugees. It was passed by 53 votes to 9, with 13 abstentions.
On 21st November, in the ordinary session of the General Assembly, a Resolution was put forward calling for the immediate withdrawal of Soviet forces, the admission of United Nations observers, and an end to the deportations. That was carried by 55 votes to 10, with 14 abstentions. Another Resolution was passed on that same date, urging Hungary to permit observers to enter its territory. That went through by 57 votes to 8, with 14 abstentions.
On 4th December, a Resolution calling upon the Soviet Union and Hungary to admit observers to Hungary by 7th December was passed by 54 votes to 10, with 14 abstentions. Finally, on 12th December, a Resolution condemning the Soviet Union, calling upon it to desist from intervention and to make immediate arrangements for withdrawal, and requesting the Secretary-General to take any initiative which he might deem helpful, was passed by 55 votes to 8, with 13 abstentions.
The voting on many of these Resolutions has shown a double standard as compared with the votes on Suez. Some of those very anxious to condemn Great Britain and France have been singularly reluctant to show themselves opposed to the action of the Soviet Union in Hungary.
In the face of this record, no one can deny that there has been great activity by the United Nations in debating this matter and in seeking to bring pressure to bear upon the Soviet Union and the present authorities in Hungary, but their activity has not yet had any impact on events because, unfortunately, not the slightest respect has been shown to any of these Resolutions by the Soviet Union or by the Hungarian authorities. I really must say this, even if it causes offence to hon. Members opposite. France and Britain are keeping faith with We United Nations by effecting the withdrawal from Port Said. We are entitled to demand that the Soviet Union should pay the same regard to these Resolutions of the United Nations, passed by such large majorities.
It has been suggested that the present would be a suitable time to seek Russian agreement on a European settlement. We are ready to explore any possibilities which may exist of obtaining a satisfactory settlement, and have this very much

in mind in considering the Soviet Note of 17th November, in which certain proposals were made about disarmament and a reduction of forces in Europe. Although these proposals were prefaced by a violent attack on our policy, which suggests that they were intended primarily for propaganda purposes, we would not, on that account, ignore them. They are, as I have said, being studied to see whether they contain any new constructive ideas which might usefully be followed up. So far, however, the Soviet Union stands in flagrant breach of all Resolutions in the United Nations calling on them to desist from intervention and to admit observers.

Dame Irene Ward: With all these Resolutions and masses of paper, was it not possible for the United Nations to have sent—I do not say an armed force—a properly constituted committee to the frontiers of Hungary and to have demanded admission? They are too mealy-mouthed for words. I do not know why they do not get on and do something effective.

Mr. Lloyd: That was a suggestion which was considered. It was suggested, I think, when I was in New York, that United Nations observers should be sent to Hungary, whether or not they received permission to go there from the Hungarian Government. But the responsibility in that matter was not ours. The responsibility was that of the Secretary-General, and it must be for him to take that sort of decision.
If, in spite of the attitude of the Soviet Union towards these Resolutions, it is nevertheless urged that a new offer on Germany might be made as a bargain for Soviet withdrawal from Hungary, I would ask the House to consider what this would imply. In Hungary, the Russians intervened because the population claimed the right to choose their own Government and independence for their country. That is exactly what we proposed for Germany, in Berlin in 1954, and in Geneva in 1955.
We want to see a freely elected all-German Government which is free to conduct its own foreign and domestic policies. If the Russians considered that such a Government would be a threat to their security, we have offered guarantees to them to reassure them; but it can hardly be contemplated that, to secure freedom for the Hungarians, we should be willing to consider restrictions on the


freedom to which the Germans are equally entitled and which we are pledged to secure.
I can, however, assure the House that Her Majesty's Government would be ready to consider carefully, and in consultation with our allies, any further proposals which the Soviet Government put forward, which represent a genuine and constructive contribution towards a general European settlement.

Mr. Christopher Mayhew: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman mean that he is not proposing to discuss with our N.A.T.O. allies the Note of 17th November?

Mr. Lloyd: I meant just the contrary, and I think I made it clear at Question Time, too. It is certainly a matter which must be discussed, and discussed, also, in connection with the new United States disarmament proposals.
As I was saying, to discuss these sorts of possibilities today, or to put them forward as alternatives to compliance with the United Nations Resolutions seems to me to undermine the position of the United Nations in this matter. I think it would be highly dangerous to say that one set of rules exist for people who are prepared to pay attention to the views of the United Nations, and another for those who do quite the reverse.
Therefore, I hope that the message which will go forth from all quarters of the House this evening will be admiration for the grave resistance of the people of Hungary; sympathy with them in their terrible plight; determination to do all we can to alleviate their sufferings; determination to help the refugees to the utmost of our capacity; and, finally, a demand for compliance with the Resolutions of the United Nations, which we have consistently supported.

6.23 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: I am glad that the Leader of the House, taking into account the obviously strong feeling existing in all quarters of the House, was able to rearrange the business for this week so that we could have this debate. It would, indeed have been very wrong if we had departed for our Christmas Recess without having several hours' discussion on what I think most would agree is one of if not the most

significant developments in Europe since 1945.
Whatever differences may exist between us about the exact circumstances in which the Russians intervened in Hungary with armed forces, or however much we may differ on what should now be done, I am sure that there is general agreement, first, that the courage and endurance, pertinacity and faith of the Hungarian people is worthy of the highest admiration; and, secondly, that we cannot but condemn utterly the ruthless action of Soviet Russia. With that we must couple, also, the action now being taken by the Kadar Government in setting up tribunals, imposing the death sentence and engaging in an internal repression programme which certainly seems very sinister.
On the causes of this matter, and, in particular, on the impact, such as it may have been, of the Suez situation on Hungary, I do not propose to speak this evening. I would assure the Foreign Secretary that he need not have apologised in any way to us when he said that there was a striking contrast between the agreement of the British and French Governments eventually, at any rate, to the cease-fire and to the withdrawal of their forces, and the utter refusal of the Soviet Government to take the slightest notice of the United Nations. I would say that we who pressed the Government very strongly to agree to the cease-fire and the withdrawal have both the right and duty to emphasise this contrast.
I should like to say a few things, but very few, about the nature of this rising. The facts, I think, are known to all of us and there is no need to repeat them, but two characteristics seem to me worth singling out. First, it is quite evident that this was a spontaneous revolution, and that all the propaganda about it being inspired from outside sources, or that it was a carefully laid Fascist plot, is just propaganda.
I do not think that there is any doubt at all that behind it lay a very great deal of economic distress. All the evidence that is coming out of Hungary now shows that the extent to which Russia has exploited Hungary in these post-war years is very great indeed. The standard of living of the Hungarian people obviously has been kept down in the most ruthless manner. But as for the rising itself, I do not think there is the


slightest doubt that it was provoked on 23rd October by the fact that the police opened fire on a peaceful demonstration in Budapest. From then onwards what had been merely a demonstration developed swiftly into a revolution.
The second characteristic of the rising is the extraordinary part played in it by young people, by the youth of Hungary. It has been led by students and factory workers, the very classes of the community whom one would suppose might have most easily fallen to Communist propaganda. One can add, too, as further evidence that not only the students but the factory workers have themselves been right in the van of this movement, the extraordinary courage shown by the workers' councils in recent weeks. So let nobody say that this is something which comes from outside. It is something which comes from the Hungarians themselves, and it has been led by their youth.
Whatever we may feel about what might or might not have been done—and I shall have something to say about that in a few moments—let us at least record these consequences of the extraordinary developments of the last two months. Many of us in this House, and, indeed, in the country generally, have, in the past few years, felt a sense of profound depression about the situation of people living under totalitarian dictatorships.
We have been influenced by literature on the subject, notably by that very remarkable novel "1984." We have been influenced by what we have heard from others. We have been influenced by the apparently complete suppression of the 1953 rising in East Germany, and we came to the conclusion, perhaps wrongly even at the time, that it was almost impossible for a free people to resist the enormous power of a totalitarian dictatorship.
The great thing that the Hungarian rising has done is to remove that burden of depression from our minds. We now know that whatever the régime, however ruthless the dictatorship, however tight its control over propaganda, it cannot suppress the flame of freedom, it cannot suppress the demand for liberty. The fact that young people, not only in Hungary but, so one understands, in Soviet

Russia itself, are demanding a greater degree of freedom is an immensely encouraging fact for those who believe, as all of us here believe, in democratic institutions.
The second consequence is, of course, that behind the Iron Curtain itself, in the other satellite countries, what has happened in Hungary is bound to have, and I do not doubt is already having, a most profound influence. The situation there is a completely new one. It is a situation which, I must admit, I did not, a few years ago, expect to develop so rapidly, if at all. We had the rising in East Germany, as I said just now, which was suppressed. There were the Poznan riots and the developments in Poland. Now we have the rising in Hungary, in addition to all that. It is quite clear that everywhere behind the Iron Curtain there is a ferment of new developments, a changing situation, and all of that has been given a tremendous impetus by the Hungarian revolution.
The third consequence is the devastating effect which these events have had upon the reputation and position of Communist parties everywhere else in the world. I will quote but one extract, if I may, to illustrate this. It is an extract from something written by Mr. Fryer, who was employed on the staff of the Daily Worker, but who resigned from that newspaper. This is what he wrote in the New Statesman about Hungary:
The Stalinists put their faith in T54 tanks and a four-day bombardment of Budapest; they support the export of socialism in high-explosive form. I preferred and I still prefer to put my faith in the Hungarian people… From start to finish the Daily Worker—or rather the Stalinists who control it—have lied, lied, lied about Hungary…Shame on a newspaper which can spit on a nation's anguish and grief. Shame on party leaders who can justify with smooth clichés and lies the massacre and martyrdom of a proud and indomitable people.
That is very well expressed, and perhaps all the better for coming from an ex-Communist.
I now turn to the question of what more might have been done. For our part, of course, we entirely support the action of the Government in letting in the Hungarian refugees, the action of the Home Secretary in relaxing the rules which normally apply, the help which has been given in relief work, and the support given to the demands of the United


Nations. But there is the question—we have to face it—could more have been done? Here, with respect, I feel that attacks upon the United Nations for failing to do this are misplaced. They are misplaced for this reason, that nobody is proposing any alternative. There is no suggestion that N.A.T.O. might have been able to act if the United Nations were not involved. As far as I know, Her Majesty's Government have not proposed, either in the United Nations or outside, any other course of action.
That being so, it is obviously highly superficial to criticise the United Nations in this matter.

Mr. Denis Healey: And dishonest.

Mr. Gaitskell: There is no proposal that we should have acted on our own, as there was in the case of the Middle East.
The reason, which we must face, is that, as we all know, a proposal to intervene by force would have involved a very great risk of the third world war. It may be regrettable, but we must simply say that; and it is that which has inhibited the United Nations, N.A.T.O., Her Majesty's Government, and every other country in the free world. The fact is that none of us was prepared to take that risk.
I know that some people have suggested, as I think Señor de Madariaga argued, that, after all, the Russians, also, are frightened of the third world war. It may be so. But the fact is that there are certain situations in which we would be prepared to take that risk, ghastly as it is, and there are other situations in which, frankly, we are not prepared to take the risk; and this happens to be one of them.
What else can now be done? I venture to put forward a few suggestions to the Government, and I very much hope that a member of the Government will be able to answer one or two of these proposals. My first suggestion may seem a comparatively small one. We had the privilege recently of welcoming the Leader of the Hungarian Social Democratic Party, Anna Kethly. I myself was fortunate to hear her speak, and to speak with her, in Copenhagen. Later, she

addressed a meeting of our party in the House of Commons.
At present, Anna Kethly is in New York. She wishes to address the Assembly of the United Nations. I ask the Government to support that request. There are precedents for this, and I cannot really see that any harm can be done by lending our support to her demand.
As regards the question of United Nations observers, there is, I think, much to be said for the Motion on the Order Paper—

[That this House notes with distress the refusal of the Kadar Government to admit the Secretary-General of the United Nations to Hungary; supports the efforts of the United Nations to secure the entry of observers and the Secretary-General into Hungary; and urges Her Majesty's Government, if these efforts should not be promptly successful, to suggest that the members of the United Nations which have voted for the dispatch of observers to Hungary should instruct their diplomatic representatives in Budapest to meet and agree a report on events and conditions in Hungary for submission to the General Assembly of the United Nations.]

—which supports the demand of the United Nations to secure the entry of observers, but adds that, if these efforts are not promptly successful, members of the United Nations which have voted for the despatch of observers should instruct their diplomatic representatives in Budapest to agree a report on events and conditions in Hungary and submit it to the General Assembly of the United Nations.

I ask the Government to support that proposal in the United Nations. Again, it may seem a small thing, but I do not think we shall handle this matter successfully by any one single dramatic move. We must think in terms of many different things which, taken together, may sufficiently influence the Soviet Government.

I was very glad to hear the announcement of the Foreign Secretary that the temporary ban on refugees is to be lifted early in the new year. I am sure that will give widespread satisfaction in the country. There are, however, two other matters which I think we must consider. I happened to meet quite recently some


people who were associated with the Hungarian doctors who had escaped to England. I believe that there are 30 or 40 of them. The persons concerned have lived here for a long time, and they were much distressed to find that, under the normal rule, these Hungarian medical men, and perhaps, women, who were, of course, fully qualified, may not practise in this country for three years. They are refugees. They have no money, they have nothing. They have no means of studying. They feel, not unreasonably, that since they have been practising in Hungary, they might be allowed a concession here.

I would ask the Government to look again at these restrictions on the professions. I have never felt very happy about them. I remember the way they operated before the war, when applied to refugees from Nazi Germany. I feel that, in the special circumstances of these Hungarian doctors, something might be done to help; perhaps the period could be shortened, or perhaps the Government could make free grants available for them to study. I do ask that the matter he looked into.

I now turn to the position of Austria itself. The Foreign Secretary rightly gave full praise to the Austrian Government, and I certainly associate myself with what he said. Here we have a situation where there are 72,000 refugees still in Austria and, as I understand, it is the plan of the United Nations that about 60,000 should remain there. There is a financial problem. How are the Austrian Government to pay for the housing, feeding and general care of these 60,000 refugees?

The United Nations is, in fact, asking for cash contributions. I would ask the Government to say what they are prepared to do in the matter. What are they prepared to offer in the United Nations, on behalf of the United Kingdom, to finance the maintenance of the refugees in Austria?

The most recent report to the Assembly of the United Nations deals in some detail with what the International Committee of the Red Cross is doing in Hungary. I will not read it all, but in a sense it is rather encouraging. Three different assistance programmes, I believe, are actually operating. One is

for about 173,000 children under the age of six, another is for about 50,000 children between the ages of six and 16, and from the middle of December there will be the distribution of food packages to 100,000 persons who are, broadly speaking, without means of support or are living in particularly difficult conditions. It is, however, clear from the report to the United Nations that the supplies now available for this work will last only until 15th January. In other words, if assistance is not given by then, either in cash or in kind, presumably this work will have to come to an end.

I want to ask, first, that the Government should undertake that they will give full support to the maintenance at least of the International Red Cross programme in Hungary and that they will do everything they can to see that additional supplies are available. But I would go even further than that. In Hungary the people are facing a pretty grim prospect. Winter is upon them and it may well be that cold and starvation are what they face. Here, surely, is an opportunity for the outside world to help. The International Red Cross is there. It has these relief programmes They could be extended very widely indeed. Surely this is an occasion when we want a big, imaginative gesture.

I appeal to the Government to go to the United Nations, to take the initiative and say that we will put down—I do not know what the exactly appropriate figure would be—say, £1 or £5 million for this relief work. It would make a tremendous impression and I have not the slightest doubt that we would find other members of the United Nations being prepared to pay in as well.

If, through the United Nations and the International Red Cross, we can really come to the help of the Hungarian people in these ways during this winter, it would also have an enormous political significance.

Mr. Cyril Osborne: Does the right hon. Gentleman know whether the United Nations has the people trained and ready to do the work as well as giving the money? Money of itself would not do the job.

Mr. Gaitskell: The Red Cross is actually doing the job, but is doing it for the United Nations. That is the


position. I understand from the report that the work certainly could be expanded. As to how fast it could be expanded, I hope that the hon. Member will not press me. He probably agrees with the general idea and I urge the Government to push ahead with it.
The last point to which I want to refer is the question of policy, to which the Foreign Secretary also referred. I said, earlier, that there is undoubtedly a new situation in Central and Eastern Europe. I can sum it up in a phrase. Only the Red Army, it is clear, now maintains the Communist régimes in Central and Eastern Europe. That is a new situation. and it seems to me that in the light of that situation we really ought not to be, say, legalistic—I hope that the Foreign Secretary does not mind that word—thinking in terms that we ought not to do something outside the United Nations. [Laughter.] I hope that hon. Members will listen first to what I am suggesting.
The Foreign Secretary was inclined to say, "Well, so long as the United Nations was there, no other initiative of any kind was possible." We have never said that—[Interruption.] I hope that hon. Members will not try to draw me into saying once again what we have said, because I do not want to do that this evening.
What I want to suggest is this. There is a new situation in Central and Eastern Europe. Undoubtedly, that is a much more awkward and difficult situation for the Russians than anything they have had in the past. Undoubtedly, that being so, they are likely to look afresh on proposals which, so long as they give them adequate security, may involve the withdrawal of Soviet forces from these countries. They face a dilemma, either to stay there and use the power of their armies and repress everything, or to risk a serious loss of face in the defeat by popular risings of the Communist régimes.
It may be that, faced with this dilemma, the Russians will consider now proposals which they would not have considered at all a year or two ago. That is why some of us suggest—we do not, of course, ask for an immediate reply—a new look at this problem. We suggest that the idea of a large neutral area, which would be guaranteed by a security pact and

from which armed forces would be withdrawn, both on the Russian side and on our side, is something which really offers a considerable opportunity for achieving two things at the same time: the freedom of the peoples in the satellite countries and the security of that part of Europe.
That may be ambitious and I shall not ask for a precise answer tonight, but I beg the Government not simply to sit back and say that they will look at anything that the Russians propose. Is it not time that we took the initiative here? Is it not time, at least, that we discussed in N.A.T.O. plans of this kind? This is probably the most important and effective proposal that can be made.
It has been suggested by the French Foreign Minister that Hungary might be given the same neutral status that Austria has. That is part of the same idea and at least, if that could be achieved—if we could say to the Russians that we were prepared to include Hungary in a treaty similar to the Austrian Treaty—I would certainly be glad. I hope, therefore, that the Government will proceed, either in that more limited field or in the wider field which I have suggested, to see what can be done.
In short, my feeling is this. In paying very sincere tribute and honour, as we all do, to the amazing courage and endurance of the Hungarian people, let us not content ourselves with mere expressions of sympathy and praise. Let us try to combine these expressions with something a little more concrete. That is why I have made these various proposals and I hope that the Government will respond to them in the spirit in which they are put forward.

6.48 p.m.

Sir Lionel Heald: I should like briefly to refer to two specific points. The first is in some ways a personal one but it is a matter to which I think it is proper to make reference. The House may be aware that a suggestion has been made by the three legal societies associated with the three parties that legal observers should be allowed to go and witness the trials at present taking place in Hungary.
It is notable that this is the first occasion in history when those three bodies have worked together. It is even more notable that it is the news from Hungary which


has brought them together for united action. That is a perfectly genuine and serious proposal. It has, I believe, been described in one quarter as being by way of a stunt. It is quite wrong to say that. We have every intention of going, if we have the opportunity, and I know that I have the support of my two predecessors in the office of Attorney-General in saying that.
While it may be very optimistic indeed to suppose that there is the slightest chance of the request being granted, I can say that the Hungarian Legation in London is taking the proposal quite seriously and that I do not at all despair of something coming of it. That being the case, it would be wrong for me this evening to prejudge the trials and what is going on in Hungary. After all, we ought to adopt our own principles and say that if we are going there to see what happens we ought at least to reserve final judgment until we know more about it.
I think, however, it is right to say that reliable reports suggest quite definitely that justice may not be being done according in any way to what we in this country or other civilised countries regard as justice. If that is not so, it is very easy for the Hungarian Government to say, "We will let you examine the matter. Come and see what is going on and judge for yourselves." If they refuse our offer, the world will be able to draw its own conclusion.
The second specific consideration that I want to mention is the importance and value at the present time of the British Broadcasting Corporation's European Service. From the information which is available, there is no doubt at all that that service is doing most valuable work again now, as it did during the war, and that it has appealed particularly to the younger people in places like Hungary. There is clear evidence that it is being listened to by them, and I think we may well say that it has contributed in part to what they have done. I hope that we may be able to have an assurance from the Government tonight that they appreciate the importance of that service and that they intend to support it.
There are well-informed people who at the present time are concerned that the Government do not appreciate the importance of the B.B.C.'s European Service. It is even suggested that at

this very moment, which one would have thought a very inappropriate moment, the Treasury and the Foreign Office are planning to cut it down drastically. I hope that we shall be assured that that is not so. A few days ago there was a debate here on information services. I understand, for I was, unfortunately, not present, that debate was limited in such a way that the B.B.C.'s services of that kind were not comprehended in it. I think that it has, therefore, been suggested that the views which were expressed in that debate, as to the importance of information services at the present time, did not extend to the B.B.C.'s European Service. The only reason why they did not was, I understand, that it would not have been in order to have discussed that service in that debate.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: There is no question of cutting the B.B.C.'s overseas service to Hungary or the satellite countries.

Sir L. Heald: I am much obliged to my right hon. and learned Friend, but we are afraid that the cutting down in other directions may, at some future time, be equally disastrous. Suppose, for instance, trouble arose in the far North. It might well be that in Sweden, Finland, places of that kind, the reception of good advice and encouragement from here might be very important indeed. Therefore, I am wondering whether, if we are only not cutting down the service to Hungary, we are considering the matter in a rather shortsighted way.
Some people say we cannot do anything practical to help Hungary. I think that is one thing we can do. We can give them help and ecouragement through our B.B.C. services, which, whatever anyone who does not know about them says, are regarded by the people in those countries themselves as of real value. I understand that the B.B.C.'s European Service comes under the Foreign Office Vote. I am not speaking from any personal knowledge of the matter, but I remember having heard in the past that there is a little tendency there to regard it as the ugly duckling, and there are people who think that the present Postmaster-General would be an admirable person to co-operate with the B.B.C. European Service as well as with other people—

Sir Robert Boothby: This is a really vital question. Is my right hon. and learned Friend seriously suggesting to the House that we should, through the B.B.C., encourage the Hungarians to continue fighting, without being able ourselves to give them any assistance? That is frightfully important. My right hon. and learned Friend's speech may be interpreted in that way.

Sir L. Heald: I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend. He is certainly quite right in raising that question and giving me an opportunity of making it perfectly clear that I would be, I hope, the last person in the world to suggest that we should encourage people to set up a hopeless resistance.
What I have in mind is quite different. Where people are behaving in a heroic way, where they are undergoing great suffering, where they may be, as it appears, undergoing injustices as well, it is surely an admirable thing that they should be able to know that people outside know that they are brave, know that they are suffering. I cannot believe that that is not a good thing. It is certainly a fact that there is the strongest evidence coming back from Hungary that it does do an enormous amount of good.
I would, however, certainly accept the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Sir R. Boothby) and make it perfectly clear that the stirring up of insurrection or anything of that kind is quite a different thing altogether. I believe we can trust those doing the job to understand that.
I understand that at the present time the Poles are doing more broadcasting to Europe than we are. It seems to be a reason for being wary before we cut down our European Service. I believe that at the moment Russia is doing more broadcasting to Europe than is any other country. The order of those broadcasting the most to Europe is Russia first, the "Voice of America" second, Poland third, and the B.B.C. fourth.
Finally, I would suggest that in the reorganisation of N.A.T.O. at the present time there should be recognition of the importance of a service of that kind. Its immense importance should be recognised, because it is of enormous help to have a connection created between countries by services of that kind, along-

side their military alliances and cooperation. I hope, therefore, that the Government appreciate the importance of the broadcasting system in relation not only to Hungary but also to all the other countries which may be affected by it, and I hope that they will give it careful attention.

6.57 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Henderson: All the speeches which have been made in this debate have been commendably brief, and I intend that mine shall not be an exception. I desire to speak mainly because I have some knowledge of the Hungarian people. I visited their country frequently up to September, 1939. Like others, I came to admire their spirit of independence and their rugged personal qualities. Certainly the Hungarian people are not the sort of people who will submit indefinitely to the foreign yoke.
It is quite evident, I think, that the Russians have based their Iron Curtain policy on a profound under-estimation of the fundamental qualities, not only of the Hungarian people, but of the other satellite nations. The uprisings of both the Polish and the Hungarian peoples must indeed have come as a most unpleasant shock to the Russians. Ten years of suffering and hardship exhausted the patience of the Hungarian people, as indeed it would have exhausted that of any other nation in similar circumstances. It may well be that the Russian miscalculation accounts for the brutal manner in which they set about smashing the Hungarian freedom forces, composed, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition indicated a few minutes ago, virtually of the whole of the Hungarian nation, the workers, the students, the armed forces, with a ruthless and relentless lack of restraint, including the mass deportation of thousands of young men and women.
That action on the part of the Russian authorities has created a most appalling refugee problem. Nearly 150,000 men, women and children have had to flee from possible death and imprisonment at home to an uncertain life abroad. The tragic fate of these people, as the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. Friend agreed, has become a responsibility of the entire civilised world.
A great deal has been done, of course. The efforts of the Red Cross societies and of thousands of voluntary workers in this and in other countries have done a great deal to alleviate the sufferings of these people, but a great deal remains to be done. I hope that the Government will give very serious consideration to the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that we should do much more to rebuild the shattered economy of that unhappy country. I hope that they will give the most earnest consideration to his concrete proposal that this country should be prepared to provide anything up to £5 million as an example to other countries in the United Nations.
I believe that a great deal could be done in due course, by the provision of raw materials and credits and other forms of economic aid, in order to enable the Hungarians to rehabilitate their country. The hon. Member for Louth (Mr. C. Osborne), asked whether the United Nations have the experience and the officials to carry out this work of rehabilitation. I am not sure whether U.N.R.R.A. was actually wound up, but certainly it had plenty of experience in rehabilitating countries. As we all know, it did a wonderful job in the post-war years. I hope that it will be possible for the United Nations either to revivify U.N.R.R.A. or to establish some other similar type of international organisation for that purpose. I am sure that all hon. Members will agree that it should not be left to a small country like Austria to have to meet the main burden, although we know that she has not hesitated to strain her resources almost to breaking point.
We are often asked what the United Nations will do in the face of the obstinate refusal of the Soviet Union to respond to the Resolutions passed at the General Assembly. I hope that the United Nations will continue to insist that the Secretary-General as well as United Nations observers should be allowed to visit Hungary in the near future so that they may see conditions as they are and report to the General Assembly so that the General Assembly can be fully informed of both the political and humanitarian aspects of the problem.
I know that there are hon. Members opposite who seem to sneer whenever anyone mentions the United Nations, but

what is the alternative to the United Nations, with all its weaknesses and all its deficiencies, none of which can be placed at the threshold of the United Nations itself but at the threshold of the Governments which compose the United Nations, including our own?
I would face this question of what the United Nations should do. I hope that in addition to insisting upon the Secretary-General and United Nations observers being admitted into Hungary it will be possible, pending that, for Her Majesty's Government to consider sending a senior Minister to Austria to co-operate with Vice-President Nixon in ascertaining as many of the facts as possible about the tragic situation, not only in Austria itself, but across the border in Hungary.
If I am asked what the United Nations can do, more than pass resolutions, I would submit that Article 41 of the Charter should be implemented if the Soviet Union continues to defy the United Nations. As hon. Members know, Article 41 provides for sanctions other than military sanctions to be employed against any country which is in defiance of the United Nations. At any rate, I hope that we can rely on Her Majesty's Government to support any proposal which may be carried at the General Assembly to impose sanctions under Article 41.

Mr. K. Zilliacus: Is it not the fact that under the Charter only the Security Council can decree sanctions and that the recommendations of the Assembly are not binding on the members of the United Nations?

Mr. Henderson: It is quite true that Article 41 provides for a decision by the Security Council, and it is equally true that the Charter provides that a permanent member, such as Russia, could veto a decision by the Security Council. It is equally true that the General Assembly, under the "Uniting for Peace" Resolution, has authority to come to a decision. Hon. Members can call it a recommendation if they like, but it would be in effect a decision if carried by two-thirds of those voting in the General Assembly calling upon member States of the United Nations to implement the provisions of Article 41.

Mr. Zilliacus: No obligation.

Mr. Anthony Kershaw: Can the right hon. and learned Member deal with the difficulty that sanctions might do more harm to Hungary than to Russia?

Mr. Henderson: I do not think that it necessarily follows that if economic sanctions, complete or partial, were employed against the Soviet Union, or if the diplomatic representatives of perhaps 60 nations were withdrawn from Russia, there would be any hardship on Hungary. [An HON. MEMBER: "There might be on us."] It depends whether we are prepared to avoid taking over our responsibilities under the Charter because it might be embarrassing to us. That is not the way to make the United Nations work.
As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said, we now face a new situation in Europe. We must continue our efforts to solve the European problem. As I read events in Eastern Europe, it seems to me that whilst Soviet Russia is prepared to give a large measure of independence to her satellites and to countenance an increasing measure of internal freedom and allow more than one road to what they regard as Socialism, she will not tolerate any breach of her security arrangements under the Warsaw Pact.
Incidentally, it is interesting to remember that in the constitution of the Soviet Union provision is made for full self-determination for the benefit of all the people who compose Soviet Russia, and that it was only some months ago that the present Russian leaders agreed with Mr. Nehru, the Prime Minister of India, that every nation was entitled to the right of self-determination. But to withdraw from the Warsaw Pact and to adopt a status of neutrality is forbidden by the Soviet Union, and it would be repressed by force—overwhelming force, if necessary, as we have seen in Hungary. Nevertheless, it may be that recent tragic events will provide a new opportunity for the West to help the cause of national independence and human rights. It must be obvious to the Russians that they cannot rely on the 100 million people in the satellite countries as potential allies in the event of war.
I should like to make some practical suggestions. I very much hope that a meeting between President Eisenhower,

the French Prime Minister and our own Prime Minister will take place in the near future so that we can once again restore Western union. In addition, as soon as conditions are favourable, I hope that this meeting will be followed by a five-power conference, to include the Indian Prime Minister. It is particularly important that the Asian communities should be represented at such an important high-level conference.
It is with such a five-Power conference in mind that I endorse what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition suggested, that the time has now come for collective consideration by the West of policies that take into account, first, Russian security, and, second, national independence for the satellite countries. believe that we need to proceed with our efforts to bring about an acceptable system of security for Europe, within which there could be provision to achieve the two objectives that I have just mentioned.
Western thinking, to my mind, should be directed to the following related matters, upon which some progress might be possible as time develops. First. I suggest that Western Germany should reaffirm that force will never he used by a reunited Germany to change the Oder-Neisse frontiers. It is interesting that in the recent communiqué issued in Warsaw reference was made to the need to keep Russian troops in Poland because of a possible threat to those frontiers.
Secondly, there should he a N.A.T.O. declaration that it will not allow force to be used from the West to change the Oder-Neisse frontiers. Thirdly, the satellite countries should become independent and neutral, free from any military alliance if they so desire, and with their neutrality guaranteed by Russia in the East and N.A.T.O. in the West. Fourthly, there should be a more flexible approach to the question of German reunification and its relationship to N.A.T.O.
I want to make one reference to disarmament. It seems to me that the other key to the solution of the European problem lies through a drastic reduction of armaments. It is particularly encouraging, therefore, that the United States has recently indicated that it is no longer insisting on a complete system of aerial inspection. The recent offer of 17th November by the Soviet Union to agree


to a limited scheme of aerial inspection, extending 500 miles on each side of the East-West German border, if accepted, would to my mind be a useful step in the right direction. I think that we should also welcome the American readiness to begin a parallel examination of both arms control and a European political settlement. This might well lead to a solution of the European political problem which for many years has proved so intractable.
My last word is this. History has shown that no nation will tolerate indefinitely being deprived of its individual freedom and national independence. It may be that the Russians will crush the physical resistance of the Hungarian people; I do not believe that it will destroy their minds or their aspirations.

7.11 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander S. L. C. Maydon: I shall confine my remarks to the refugees themselves, and particularly to the part that the Council of Europe has played in this matter, a part which is in great contrast in its immediate effectiveness compared with what has been done by other international bodies which apparently are impotent in this matter.
One of the earliest actions taken after the black Sunday of 4th November was that the Committee on Population and Refugees was called to meet in Vienna to discuss the problem and to see for itself on the spot what was going on. At the first meeting on Monday, 12th November, a telegram was sent to the Committee of Ministers' Deputies who were known to be meeting on that day in Strasbourg. It was known that there was a surplus from the Council of Europe Budget for 1955 amounting to well over 100 million French francs. A telegram was sent urgently requesting the Ministers' Deputies to set aside all, or a large part, of that sum of money for Hungarian relief work, and to turn it over either to the Austrian Government or to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
We were somewhat horrified when we received a reply that this matter was under consideration and would be reconsidered on 3rd December. We felt that

such a delay in such an urgent matter was quite unjustifiable. At any rate, on 3rd December the Committee of Ministers set aside 100 million French francs from the surplus of the Council of Europe Budget and it is to be paid to the Austrian Government to use for relief work.
One of the recommendations made by the Committee on Population and Refugees to the Committee of Ministers, which has since been endorsed by the Standing Committee of the Council of Europe, reads as follows:
To invite member States to negotiate agreement with the United States Government, the Governments of Australia, Canada and other governments overseas, which have undertaken to receive Hungarian refugees, to ensure that refugees who have been selected for asylum in European countries other than Austria will not be prejudiced thereby from final resettlement in the United States, Australia, Canada or elsewhere overseas.
The point behind that recommendation is that it was our experience, speaking to refugees themselves and to officials of the United Nations High Commission, the International Committee for European Migration and other responsible bodies on the spot, that a great many refugees were reluctant to choose to go to Britain, to Sweden, to France or any other European country because they felt that by so doing their chances of eventual emigration overseas would be prejudiced. This was because they knew that other countries in Europe were subjected to a quota system for immigration, certainly into the United States and also into many Commonwealth countries. So that recommendation was deliberately added to the list of recommendations to be made to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe.
Somewhat to my dismay, on Monday this week I saw a letter in The Times written by a man who is a Hungarian interpreter and apparently has been doing considerable work in refugee camps in this country. He writes that in the course of those duties he has worked in a camp which has temporarily housed 850 Hungarian people. It is a small sample, but what he states is significant. He endorses what we all knew in Austria when we were there, that a large majority of these Hungarian refugees want to get overseas into Canada,


other Commonwealth countries, the United States and elsewhere, in fact as far away from Europe as they can possibly get.
This person also says that a number of these people carry pamphlets issued by the I.C.E.M. organisation saying that acceptance of temporary asylum in England or elsewhere does not prejudice their further chances. In fact, a translation of one of the pamphlets would lead anybody to believe that the recipient of the pamphlet, the Hungarian to whom it had been given, would within a few days be sent on from Britain to Canada, the United States or wherever he wished to go. That, of course, is not the case, and there are very considerable delays.
The letter in The Times goes on to say that:
To pacify these sentiments the camp officials contacted the United States Embassy in London, but the only information they were able to obtain was that nothing can be done for these Hungarian refugees in England until Congress meets in January.
At the same time, they know that at least 3,000 Hungarian refugees have left Austria and have been flown direct to the United States and to Canada, and it is not surprising that these people who were persuaded, in order to relieve the pressure on Austria, to accept their first asylum in Britain, are becoming a little uneasy, particularly if they already have overseas relatives whom they want to join.
I should like to ask the Minister of State whether Her Majesty's Government will emphasise this difficulty, to the Commonwealth Governments particularly, and will also notify the United States Government officially that this attitude is creating very real difficulty in the process of relieving the strain on Austria by dispersing refugees, at least temporarily, to other countries in Europe.
With reference to the Commonwealth side of this matter, I should like to quote a paragraph from a letter written by a man whose family has given shelter to two Hungarian refugees. He says:
We have two refugees with us who want to go on to Australia but find—I have a letter from the Australian High Commissioner—that they must pay their own passage.
That cannot be right. There must be some mistake in that case, because international bodies have already undertaken

to pay the passages of people from Hungary who wish to emigrate. It is obvious that a misunderstanding has occurred, and the sooner it is cleared up the better for all concerned, for the Hungarians themselves, for the Austrian people who have been very hard put to it to find accommodation for this enormous flood of refugees, and for our own good reputation in this country and in the Commonwealth.

7.24 p.m.

Mr. Ron Ledger: Looking around, I see many experts on foreign affairs. I must say immediately that I can make no claim to such a qualification. However, there is one important reason why I take part in this debate, and that is that three weeks before the revolution began in Hungary I returned to this country after having spent seven weeks there. During the time I was there I had an opportunity to speak to politicians, leaders of the co-operative movement, leaders of industry and trade union organisations in factories, and, on the last day but one, their society of lawyers.
During that time we discussed many things concerned with Hungary's economic problems and with the new attitude to freedom and it is because of those discussions and because of what I discovered that I want to make one point tonight. It relates to the question of the use of refugees for propaganda purposes. It seems to me that there is a danger that we may use the refugees here for propaganda purposes, which will not help those in Hungary who are still fighting, not necessarily with guns, for democracy, for greater freedom, and to get the Russians out of Hungary.
From all that I saw in Hungary I can say that uppermost in the minds of the Hungarians was the desire to get rid of the Russians. Their hatred of the Russians and of any nation occupying Hungary is something that we do not know. I have never encountered a hatred like it. Here I want to qualify a statement by an hon. Member who referred to the "ten years of suffering" of the Hungarians. Most Hungarians talk of "a lifetime of suffering" under various dictators. Very few could understand freedom as we understand it.
We ought to have clearly in our minds exactly what we are aiming to do through the debate, through this country, through the Government, through N.A.T.O., and through the United Nations to help these people, not the refugees, who are being helped materially, but those Hungarians who have stayed behind to fight the battle for freedom in whatever way they can.
I want to give an example of what I describe as dangerous and unhelpful propaganda. My attention was drawn to a report in a local newspaper about a Hungarian family consisting of a man, his wife and two children. According to the report, the wife said that she would rather have bacon and eggs in England than chicken in Budapest, though not that there was any chicken in Budapest, because she had existed mostly on dry bread.
One thing that struck me in Hungary it struck the tourists that I met there, and there were about eleven coachloads from this country, and it has also struck British businessmen in Hungary—was the almost magnificent appearance of the children. My own wife commented on it, saying that we were proud enough of the children in England but the people of Hungary had every right to be proud of their care for their children. Indeed, I did not see a hungry person in Hungary, and I think that people will agree with me that on television and in the cinemas they have not seen a picture of a Hungarian who looks really hungry.
In order to make sure, I interviewed last night the lady to whom I have referred. I did not want to tell the House that I did not think it right that a person should say that she lived on dry bread unless I was sure that the facts were correct. The lady agreed that she had forgotten that vegetables were cheap and plentiful in Budapest, but she had not thought it important to mention that. However, I feel that if the newspaper report had said that she lived on plenty of vegetables and dry bread, even that would have presented a different picture.
I mention that because those who are still in Hungary fighting for democracy may hear of such reports and propaganda. If they do, they will not believe that we are their friends or that we are trying to help them in their democratic aims. They may come to believe that all we seek to do is to establish something like

their pre-war régime, and I found nobody who wanted that. Even the most ardent opponents of Communism, and there were plenty of them, stressed that they did not want to return to the landlordism of the past and the old type of capitalism. They made that quite clear. At the same time, I think that of all the people we spoke to, not one in ten professed to be an ardent Communist and certainly very few of them were members of the Communist Party.
I feel that within the Communist Party in Hungary there were many men and women who were working hard for democracy, who were opposed to Stalinism, and who were glad to see the back of Rakosi and Gero, but who were pleased that the Twentieth Congress had allowed them a greater measure of freedom and given them a chance to fight for it.
While I was there, I read a number of reports in their papers criticising the privileges given to the Communist Party leaders and the trade union leaders, and calling for greater freedom. Indeed, before I left, I wrote an article for a paper in which I warned the Government there that although they talked of freedom, they were failing to impress the people of Hungary that they were intending to give them freedom, and I suggested that there might be trouble unless they could get the full co-operation of the people, which they could only do by proving that their intentions were good.
It is my belief—and this appears to be backed up by the refugees whom I have met here, who include a doctor friend whom I met whilst I was in Hungary—that this revolution, which started with a demonstration by students and workers, became, in the main, a revolution against the Russians. That was the main objective —to get the Russians out. If we start to make this an economic issue, I believe that we are really on the wrong road and we shall not help these people. Of course, their standard of living was not as good as ours. Certainly, not everyone in Budapest could have a chicken or meat; but it will be a disastrous thing if these refugees are being told, as the one whom I saw last night was told, that every family in England has a joint of meat every day on the table. This lady, here for


the first time, did not know that we have things like slums in this country and houses without water and without bathrooms.
That recalls an incident which occurred to me when I was in a shop in Budapest. I was buying apples, and a lady touched me on the arm and said, in good English, "I understand from the way you speak that you are English." I said, "Yes."—She said, "I do not suppose that this sort of thing happens in England." I said, "What sort of thing?" "Here", she said, "they put all the best fruit in the front, but when they serve you they take it from the back". They simply do not believe that these things can happen in England.
My doctor friend who is in this country is going to be very surprised at some of the things that he will find. Nevertheless, our standards are indeed much higher than theirs; one has to admit that. We have to be careful not to imagine for one moment that any pretence is being made there that they ever had the highest standard of living. There were plenty of people who told me that their standards were low, but there were those, like some of the doctors whom I met, who said that they had qualified before the war and had only been able to get a job as a bus conductor before the war.
We must not pretend that everything there that was bad was the result of the régime which they recently had. I think that we ought to assist these refugees in every way and help them to understand our conception of freedom, but we should do it in such a way that we convey to the Hungarians who have stayed at home that we will really help them in their fight for democracy, but we leave them quite free to choose the type of democracy they want. We do not want to suggest the terms under which our aid will be given, that there must be no Socialism, that the landlords must be given their land back, because in that we shall fail. It is significant that the revolutionaries, who have been an extraordinary mixture from the extreme Left to the extreme Right, in their call for a change of Government have called for Communists as Prime Ministers of those Governments.

Mr. Frederick Willey: Surely the hon. Gentleman recognises that in 1946 Hungary had free elections and elected a Coalition Government which had a policy of wide agrarian reform. So far as we know, that expressed the wishes of the Hungarian people.

Mr. Ledger: I am not denying that they had free elections, but there were free elections before the war in many parts of the world, yet apparently the interpretation on "free" varied from one part of the world to another. I am not suggesting that we should leave them to their old type of election. Indeed, there was plenty of talk while I was there of their having a choice of candidates. I do not want to make comparisons since 1946 and to suggest that the present régime is better than that in 1946. I have said, "Let them choose themselves", but let them be absolutely certain that it is our intention to leave them to choose the type of Government which they want and not lay down the condition that they must return to capitalism or landlordism, which is something that they definitely told me they did not want.

Mr. Philip Bell: Neither are they bound to be Socialists.

Mr. Ledger: Of course they are not. So long as one stays away fom Hungary one can rest fairly contented in one's mind on that fact, but when one goes there one finds that the tendency is rather towards Socialism. I am certain that whatever happens and however much freedom they are given, they will still remain a Socialist society.
I am not an expert in foreign affairs, and I do not know a great deal about treaties and the big Power meetings that take place, neither have I a considerable amount of faith in them. My heart does not give a leap when the Big Four or Big Five meet to discuss the future of the smaller Powers. Indeed, I tremble for the smaller Powers, and I think that the course of history has shown that we should tremble for them.
I believe that an opportunity is opening up for the Government of this country to take a lead in bringing peace to Europe. I think that we should make it quite clear that we can act outside the U.N. without acting contrary to it. That is important. I cannot understand why Members on the


Government side laugh when the Opposition mention this fact. We can act outside it, and here I think there is a wonderful opportunity for the Government giving a lead, possibly through N.A.T.O., in creating in Europe a neutral zone which will include these European States.
I think that will go as far as it is possible to go towards giving these people the independence they want and the right to choose their own form of Government. Further, I think that it gives a greater opportunity for a lasting peace in Europe. I sincerely hope that the Government will not lose the opportunity which has been presented to them.

7.40 p.m.

Sir Robert Boothby: I will be brief. The hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Ledger) suggested that we should tell the Hungarians that we will help them in their fight for freedom. How? That is what I ask. That is what I asked of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald).
I think, as this tragedy unfolds before our eyes, that most of us on both sides of the House suffer from an almost unendurable sense of frustration. I am the last person to jeer at the United Nations; but the fact remains that Resolutions passed by the General Assembly, and persistently ignored by the Soviet Union, lose effect with repetition.
The Assembly has passed Resolution after Resolution and each has been less valuable than the one before, so that they are now almost a source of embarrassment. The fact must be faced—and it is better to face it, especially on the part of those who believe in the ultimate destiny of the United Nations—that so far it has proved far less successful than the old League of Nations, which did much better work in many respects before the war, even in the case of Abyssinia. The Resolutions which the Foreign Secretary enumerated have liberated no one, have stopped neither the terror nor the deportations, have done nothing to relax the tension, and have failed to get observers or the Secretary-General himself into Hungary.
About charity there is a very much better story to tell, and we were all glad to hear from the Foreign Secretary what is being done. It has been great, and

it has done much good; but it remains charity. No long-term solution of the problem with which we are now confronted will be found merely by accepting refugees from their native land. That is a salvage operation. That is a charity operation. It is no solution.
I think that the present danger is acute. It is now apparent that the Hungarian rising is no flash in the pan, and that guerilla warfare is likely to continue and expand on a massive scale. There has never been anything quite like this in history, as an epic of human resistance to physical terror. It shows, as hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, that in certain circumstances the driven human spirit can rise above everything: and that is a source of encouragement.
At the same time it is formidable and really dangerous, and we must not run away from the danger. In his famous tract on the subject of guerilla warfare Mao Tse-tung said:
Guerillas are like fish; and the people are the water in which the fish swim. If the temperature of the water is right, the fish will multiply and flourish.
That is what he wrote about guerilla warfare in China. The temperature of the water in Hungary is right. We have to face the possibility that this resistance, this guerilla warfare, may go on for a long time; and, if it does, the danger will mount. If it continues, the Russians may be driven to a policy of total frightfulness, because half measures will no longer do, and it is not merely a question of seizing key points in cities, at crossroads and railroads, etc.
If that happens, can the West simply write off Hungary, and stand on the sidelines until all Hungarian resistance is finally crushed by brutal force, over what may be quite a long period? I think not. If the Hungarian resistance asks for arms when its own supply is exhausted, which is not yet, can we refuse? I do not know. But I am sure of one thing; it would place the West in a fearful dilemma, because if we stand aside and say, "We will do nothing; we have encouraged you, and offered to help you, but we will do nothing", that will be terrible. If, on the other hand, we supply the Hungarians with arms, immediately the risk of a third world war comes over the horizon.
In this affair we have an inescapable responsibility which we must face. It arises, not only from the decisions taken at Yalta and Potsdam immediately after the war, but from our own propaganda. Some of it, although not all, may have been unofficial. The fact remains that since the war we have encouraged rebellion against Soviet oppression in the satellite countries of Europe. It may have been ill-advised—I am not arguing that—but that it has taken place there can be no doubt. That is what gave rise to the frightful sense of disillusionment and bitterness after the East German rising, when the East Germans felt that they had been completely let down.
Does the choice really lie between moral force alone, becoming increasingly ineffective; and military force, carrying the appalling risk of total war? I do not think that that is the choice. The alternative to war is negotiation. That has been mentioned on both sides of the House this evening, and it is something which no statesman should be allowed to forget.
What should the methods be? We must face the fact that the Security Council of the United Nations is not an effective instrument of collective security today, and in my opinion it never will be so long as the veto power remains. While the United Nations does valuable work and is a moral force in the world, as an instrument of collective security it will fail, and is bound to fail, so long as the veto power exists. Neither is any purely national policy any longer any good. We cannot "go it alone" any more. The events of recent weeks have surely taught us that. We cannot go it with France. The truth is that even the United States can no longer go it alone. What remains? There remains N.A.T.O.
Here I take slight issue with the Leader of the Opposition. I do not think that to put some burden of responsibility on N.A.T.O. is in the least derogatory to the United Nations, because N.A.T.O. is a legitimate regional group or organisation within the United Nations, for which the Charter specifically provides. For two years N.A.T.O. has been largely immobile. We have talked a lot about German reunification. We have talked a lot about the liberation of the satellite countries of Europe. And we have done absolutely nothing. Our policy, if such it can be

called, has been to accept in practice the division of Europe by the Iron Curtain; and to assume that the withdrawal of Russian troops from Eastern Europe would make no difference. That assumption has been proved to be fallacious by the events of the past few weeks. It makes a tremendous difference when those Russian troops are withdrawn.
The suggestion I want to put forward this evening is that we should evolve, in N.A.T.O., a common constructive policy for Europe as a whole, because Europe is the direct concern of N.A.T.O., and such a policy has hitherto been conspicuous by its absence. Here again, as in the Middle East, we have failed to act together in advance of events, and have reacted separately as events have caught up on us.
Yesterday it was Poland. The result of that was encouraging, but it took us completely by surprise, and we had nothing to do with it. Today it is Hungary—at the moment total tragedy. Tomorrow it could quite easily be East Germany. Supposing a situation arises in East Germany, as it easily could—and this is why I say the present position is so inflammable, explosive and dangerous—comparable to that in Hungary: does anybody suppose that West Germany would do nothing, would sit back? It is extremely likely that the West Germans would not.
We must therefore seek, together, a negotiated solution for the whole problem of European security. That is the issue which has been raised on both sides of the House this evening. I suggest that the proposal of the Prime Minister for a demilitarised zone in Central Europe should be revived and re-examined. He put it forward at the time of the summit Conference. I thought it was a good proposal at the time, and I still think it is. It might at least result in a withdrawal of Russian troops which would enable Hungary to achieve a position comparable to that of Yugoslavia or Poland; not necessarily to that of Austria at the moment—that might be too ambitious—but certainly to that of Yugoslavia or Poland. What an advance, and what a colossal relief, that would be.
Here I am trying only to put forward some proposals which are constructive because we can pass endless resolutions,


and groan and sigh and accept refugees, but none of those things is the real answer. We must really strive to do something effective.
What is the alternative? It is a situation of explosive danger, continuing indefinitely. That is what frightens me. I ask myself whether this is what the Russians really want. I hardly think so. The post-Stalinist policy was beginning to be rather a success; then events which led to the reversal of that policy turned it into a miserable failure. It surely cannot please the Kremlin when they survey the scene that now confronts them. They have received the moral condemnation of the world, and their strategic position in Eastern Europe has been undermined to an extent to which it has never been undermined since the war. Can that please them? The answer must be "No."
If a settlement negotiated by the West, from strength and not weakness, could be achieved, I believe that in it would lie the best and, perhaps, the only hope of Hungary, and of world peace. Therefore, I suggest that proposals for such a settlement should be made by the N.A.T.O. Powers. I do not see why we should wait, as my right hon. and learned Friend seemed to imply in his admirable speech, upon Russian proposals. It seems to me that we should submit our own proposals for a security pact for Europe, including the withdrawal of forces on both sides of a defined line. In other words, we should go back to the Prime Minister's original suggestion, which I have always thought to be a very good one.
At all events, it is up to the N.A.T.O. Powers to work the thing out together, and then put forward proposals for submission to the Soviet Union. They may fail. If they do, what will have been the harm in trying? If they fail, we must not disguise from ourselves any longer the shattering fact that a third world war will have been brought within the bounds of possibility. It may come to that. In the meantime, is it not worth making a real effort to see if we can produce proposals which will result in the alleviation of the Hungarian agony; and ultimately, perhaps, lead to peace Europe?

7.52 p.m.

Mr. K. Zilliacus: I wish to express a great measure of agreement with the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Sir R. Boothby). I do not agree that the instrument should be N.A.T.O. but that is a mere technical difference, and not really important. If it works, so much the better.
I very much agree with the hon. Member's proposition that we have three alternatives—force, which means war, which means suicide; the conducting of a cold war with hot air, which is a perfectly futile proceedings; or negotiation. This negotiation should look to a European settlement and to the freeing of Hungary as part of a general European settlement.
I should like to contribute to the debate an account of some of the things that I learnt when I was in the Soviet Union, Poland, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia, during the last half of October and first half of November. In Poland, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia I spent a great deal of time discussing with the leaders of those countries what was happening in Hungary. In Poland and Yugoslavia, at any rate, the leaders are just as passionately opposed to Soviet policy in Hungary as any of us. They, too, regard it as a crime against humanity, a violation of the Charter and a gigantic blunder on the part of the Soviet Government. The one thing that they are anxious for is to get the Russians out of Hungary.
Before I suggest what should be done I should like hon. Members to consider for a short time why the Russians have taken this action. First, the Soviet Government are largely responsible for the Rakosi régime and all the horrors committed by it. They are also responsible for Rakosi being succeeded by Geroe—a carbon copy of Rakosi.
They are responsible for listening to Geroe's appeal to use Soviet troops against a demonstration of the Hungarian people which was peaceful to start with, on 23rd October, and turned hostile only after a criminal speech by Geroe telling the crowd that they were counterrevolutionary scum—of which they took rather a dim view. However, the situation was not irreparable even then. The Nagy Government was formed; it became


a coalition Government and formulated a programme of neutrality, withdrawal from the Warsaw Pact and departure of Soviet forces and the institution of free elections—which everyone knew would result in a non-Communist Hungary.
For a time the Russians wavered, and it looked as though they would swallow it, as they had swallowed the events that had happened in Poland. They did not like them, but they did so, and, when they did, they did it handsomely and in a big way. There were two factors which turned the balance the other way on this occasion. First, the Nagy Government was crumbling. It could not hold the situation. It was clear that there might be considerable disorder and throat cutting in Hungary.
There then came into operation the Soviet conditioned reflex. I do not mean what I am about to say to be taken in a party sense, but the Soviet leaders are, quite literally, the Conservatives of Communism, because their society is forty years old and there is hardly anybody left except the old people who know of any different society. They find it almost impossible to envisage that the Communist order of things can be so unpopular among the peoples of other countries that it can lead to large scale popular revolt. They immediately jump to the conclusion that it is due to infiltration and subversion by foreign agents, and that it must therefore be counterrevolutionary, Fascist and the rest.
The second thing that altered the situation was the Anglo-French military action in Egypt. From the Russian point of view this changed the international context of their dilemma and made their security risks very much greater if they left Hungary to work out her own destiny. It seemed to the Russians like a collapse of the whole policy of the moderates of trying to come to terms with the Western Powers. It looked to them like a gesture of defiance from Britain and France—as though we were saying, "We shall treat you as a negligible quantity and a potential enemy in the Middle East. We shall carry on and take the law into our own hands and impose our own will".
In those circumstances, the Russians said to themselves, "If we let Hungary go, what guarantee have we, first, against

it becoming a hostile Hungary and, secondly, against it joining the Western alliance? Thirdly, even if Hungary remained neutral, what if the next event were a similar upheaval in Germany?" That is one of the factors which bulked very large in the situation. There was a great ferment in East Germany at the beginning of these events, and Dr. Adenauer used all his influence to exert a calming effect upon the East Germans and their supporters in Western Germany. The Russians thought, "If the East Germans go the same way we shall have a united Germany, still allied to the West, and still rearming, and the whole balance of power will be decisively changed against us".
These two calculations—first, the security calculation and, secondly, the conditioned reflex of the Russians about upheavals in Communist countries—were due to the fact, as Tito said, that they have much too little faith in the Socialist forces among the peoples of these countries and much too great faith in what they can accomplish by force.
Why is this policy a blunder as well as a crime? Those people, who are so misguided by their own propaganda and conditioned reflexes as really to believe that they were merely putting down counter revolutionary bands in Hungary, in aid of the Hungarian people, must, by this time, realise that this is a classic case of the old Russian saying "miedviezhaia usluga" or, in other words, "The bear's good deed".
One of Krylov's fables has become a proverb in Russia. It is about a bear which became friendly with a man. One day it found the man asleep with a fly sitting on his nose. The bear said, "I cannot have my Hungarian friend bothered by this counter-revolutionary fly," so he raised his paw, swatted the fly and crushed the man's skull. That, more or less, is what the position must look like to those simple-minded enough —and believe me, there are people in Moscow simple-minded enough—to believe that they were merely putting down counter-revolutionary bands on behalf of the Hungarian people.
From a strategic point of view, various people, including the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East, have said that the Russians have wrecked their strategic


position and the whole system of alliances and know now that there is nothing left of the old hold of the Soviet leaders over the minds of the Communist leaders in the satellite States. They can appeal to their national interests to maintain the alliances as they have in the case of the Czechs and, still more, in the case of the Poles, who are bound to the Russian alliance as long as we go on arming Western Germany and do not recognise—let alone guarantee—their frontiers with Germany. Politically, they have started a first-class crisis inside the Communist world and there is a tremendous controversy going on and getting hotter and hotter, in which Tito has taken the lead. I would call this almost Tito v. Stalin, round 2.
Thirdly, but not least, the Soviet Government have at a stroke lost the position they have been building up for three years. They had the moral and diplomatic initiative in the business of peacemaking and disarmament offers. They have gone a long way down in that. Yet I am absolutely convinced from the things I saw and heard in Moscow that the) genuinely want to come to terms with the West. They do not want the arms race; they do not want the cold war. They would like to negotiate settlements and this policy, from their point of view, is a fearful blunder into which they have slid without quite knowing what they were starting and out of which they would like to get if they could do so without losing face and producing even worse consequences. The conclusion, of course, is that we should try to negotiate a settlement that will get the Russians out of Hungary.
At this point, I will say a word about the United Nations in relation to the use of force. The whole Charter is based on the principle that we cannot legally, within the Charter, order or decree sanctions against a great Power which is a permanent member of the Security Council. The Foreign Office Commentary on the Charter says quite plainly that the reason for that is that otherwise we might find the majority of the United Nations committed to fighting a great Power, which would start a world war and go counter to the purpose of the United Nations. That. I think, is a plain, elemental, fact.
It is no use trying to get round it by talking about economic sanctions through

the Assembly, which has no power to commit anyone to apply them. The whole point is, "Do you want to start a world war, or do you not?" The Charter says," No, you cannot coerce a great Power. You have to rely on the great Powers in the long run finding that it is a lesser evil to negotiate compromises with each other than to have eternal deadlock and, still more, than to have a war."
The point is that since, in Europe, we cannot hydrogen-bomb the Russians out of Hungary, nor cold-war them out of Hungary, we have to negotiate them out of Hungary. Since the position in Hungary is very closely linked with what happens about the unification of Germany and about the whole alliance system in Europe, we shall have to tackle the problem of Hungary as part of a general political settlement in Europe.
From that point of view, I am very glad to see that the Americans have put forward reasoned proposals in reply to the Soviet proposals of 17th November The Soviet Government then made proposals for disarmament, control and withdrawal of forces. The Americans have come up with counter-proposals which go a long way to agreement on that basis and also, according to The Times correspondent in Washington, on 17th December, the Americans are prepared to work for a single package agreement by "parallel examination of both arms control and a European political settlement." Mr. Dulles is reported in the same sense in today's Press.
This country is still a great Power in Europe. I believe that we should contribute to this discussion by putting forward some proposals of our own for a political settlement in Europe. I should like to propose that we should suggest to the Security Council a resolution giving instructions to the United Nations Secretariat to prepare a basis for a four-Power conference. That basis should be prepared by the Secretariat. It is important to get a technically competent, impartial, all-round preparation—calling in national ad hoc experts by all means, but having the thing done primarily on an international objective basis—and have them bring in as elements in working out this agreement, first, the Soviet proposals of 17th November and, then, the American counter proposals and, thirdly, I should


like to see British proposals for a political settlement in Europe.
I would recall what my right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) said in the House on 27th February. We all regret his absence today, owing to illness. My right hon. Friend said:
I do not believe that the choice before Germany should be neutrality or continued division. Nor do I think that the choice before Germany should be to join one bloc or the other. I should like to see a unified Germany, as a result of free elections, admitted to the United Nations and becoming a party to a European regional agreement with the United States, Britain and the Soviet Union.… Such a European agreement must be conditional upon control, limitation and inspection of arms,…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th February, 1956 Vol. 549, c. 848.]
The Labour Party, at its Blackpool Conference, adopted a very similar proposal calling for:
A general security pact for the whole of Europe, designed within the framework of the United Nations Charter …
within which Germany should be united
by free and democratic elections",
with
Progressive withdrawal of N.A.T.O. and Soviet-controlled forces from Germany.…
The conclusion of an agreement on those lines through four-Power negotiations
could well be the starting point for agreement on a policy of general disarmament and could provide a hopeful basis for the free development of democratic institutions in Eastern European countries.
I hope that in exchange for getting an agreement, through the Security Council preferably, through N.A.T.O., or any other way, between the Western Powers and the Soviet Union on this kind of basis of negotiation, we could reasonably ask the Soviet Government to take unilateral action in the matter of Hungary on lines which would not run counter to their various declarations, but merely suggest that they take those declarations seriously and carry them out.
We should suggest, for instance, that the Soviet Government should be willing to declare that, while they would not accept unilateral denunciation of the Warsaw Pact, it would be quite proper to go ahead with negotiating a European Treaty, plus disarmament, plus withdrawal of forces, within which Hungary could take her place on the same terms

as Germany, that is, outside the rival alliances, which in any case should be subordinated to the working of the treaty and the obligations of the Charter. In the meantime, they should recall their 30th October declaration about the withdrawal of troops from countries which did not want them to be there and say that they were quite prepared to act on that on request.
As far as Hungary was concerned, they should negotiate with those immediately responsible for the formation of a coalition Government headed by Nagy on the one hand, and, on the other, for the withdrawal of all or most of the Soviet forces and their replacement by units taken from countries acceptable to the Hungarians as well as to the Russians themselves—for instance, Finland, Poland. Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia. They should then invite United Nations observers, and take the initiative in an international scheme for economic aid to Hungary. The Hungarian coalition Government would then get on with having free elections and, as soon as this general treaty had been negotiated, there should be withdrawals of forces both to the East and West, and Hungary would be free.
Those, roughly, are the lines on which this problem ought to be tackled. We cannot tackle it piecemeal, or in terms only of propaganda and denunciation. although I agree with all the denunciation, for this is a terrible business. Above all, let us take a political initiative in this country and through our Government. Let us make a constructive contribution. Time is against us in this matter. One more incident and we have "had it"; we can take no more incidents. We must work for the negotiation of a settlement, and I beg the Government to show some realisation of this. I ask them to take some initiative and to put forward a policy for negotiating an agreement.

8.11 p.m.

Sir Thomas Moore: In discussing the tragedy of Hungary our minds almost inevitably turn to the heroic courage and the endurance shown by the Hungarian people. That is very natural. It seems to me, however, that the Hungarians have many more qualities than pure heroism, tenacity and endurance. I visited Hungary many times between the wars, travelled over most of the country and met many of her people. One or two


incidents stand out in my mind which showed me the quality of the people more than anything else.
Before the First World War some golf enthusiasts in Budapest decided to build themselves a golf course above that lovely city. Not unnaturally, they obtained a golf professional from Scotland. The only name by which I ever knew him was "John Willie". Shortly after that, the war broke out and the Germans ordered the unfortunate Hungarians, who had been dragged in against us, to intern all British people in Hungary. "John Willie" was duly interned, he was interned in the golf club, and throughout the war he was treated as a welcome guest. Little extra rations of tobacco and sugar, for instance, found their way to "John Willie". That showed something of the generous heart of these people whose dreadful predicament today we so much deplore.
I remember, too, the death of a young Hungarian who was in an official position in this country and who grew to love Britain. He was on leave in Budapest when the Second World War broke out. He could not face the prospect of fighting against his British friends, so he chose the highest building in Budapest and threw himself from the top storey. He was killed.
I could give many other instances of their qualities—their admiration for Britain, which everyone finds on visits there, their admiration and imitation of our institutions and even our houses of Parliament, and their intense love of freedom which, as we have seen from the incidents of the last few weeks, still persists. Oddly enough, it persists, as right hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, among the young, who have never known anything but tyranny.
What can we do for them and how can we help? The kindly, generous, hospitable, understanding British people have done and are doing a great deal through the International Red Cross and other reputable agencies for those who escape from Hungary, but what about the country itself, which was referred to many times by the hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Zilliacus), and what about the people who are still left in Hungary to carry on the struggle?
Whatever may be said of the United Nations, it has proved itself useless on this occasion. Some of us expected that, some of us have grieved for it, but it remains a fact that the United Nations has proved itself useless. Resolutions and condemnations are no substitute for military strength and moral courage. We have now found to our cost that no nation, or group of nations, is willing to provoke the possibility of a third world war when either very powerful or very ruthless nations—either America or Russia—are concerned. They are prepared to do so only when they are dealing with nations like France and Britain, which have a civilised view of the rule of law, or possibly with Colonel Nasser, whose military strength they do not fear.
I agree with the hon. Member for Gorton that in considering how to help Hungary we are driven inescapably to the problem of what to do about Russia. I am flattered by the fact that in an article in The Times this morning the distinguished leader writer more or less set out the ideas and views which I have about the problem of Russia. We must have both set them down about the same time. Off and on, I have spent nearly three-and-a-half years in Russia and I believe that I know something about the Russian people, their mentality and certainly their Government. The people themselves are intensely kind, hospitable and generous to a degree. They know nothing except what they are told and they are frightened to believe anything else.
While the people may be frightened—and this is an important fact—their Government are frightened, too. Ever since 1917, when they won power almost by a miracle, they have been frightened of losing it. This was confirmed during the last war, when, again, they emerged almost by a miracle or, rather, by a combination of two factors: the assistance given by blood and tears from Britain during the war and the unbelievable stupidity and brutality of Hitler's behaviour after the invasion. The Russians were ready to greet their deliverers with open arms, but instead of generous treatment they were given a treatment which they found a shade worse than the tyranny they were then enduring.

Major H. Legge-Bourke: Would not my hon. Friend agree that there are Russians and Russians? As for their kindly disposition, it would be hard to find any Hungarian refugee in this country who thought the Mongolian troops who came to Hungary had any kindly instincts at all.

Sir T. Moore: It is, of course, difficult to decide who the Russians really are. As a generic term, "Russian" includes 20 or 30 different races of different degrees of civilisation and different degrees of humanity. I was trying to concentrate my argument rather than to talk about the different kinds of Russians.
The Russian Government know, I think, that, internally, their régime literally depends on the terror power of the gun, on the terror threat of Siberia and on the terror control of wages, of food and the roofs over the heads of their people—for that is about all they can expect. They know, equally, that externally, their regime depends on their overwhelming military strength and on the vague attractive idealism inherent in the philosophy of Communism.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Sir R. Boothby) said the Russians may be driven to initiate a third world war. I do not believe they will ever do so of their own volition, unless through the madness of a drunken dictator. There are two simple reasons to justify that belief. There are two kinds of war—a nuclear war and a war with traditional weapons. The Russians know that a nuclear war involves instant retaliation, as General Gruenther very properly pointed out the other day and as Field Marshal Lord Montgomery has repeated. A war of traditional weapons involves lines of communication, and our experience of the last few weeks shows that when those lines of communication are exposed to the determination of the satellite States, with the goal of freedom facing them, it will be very difficult to maintain them or, indeed, to maintain them in Russia itself.
Russia knows that she is practically universally detested by all civilised communities and is therefore driven to maintain this satellite buffer to ward off a feared military onslaught. To help Hungary, to help Poland, to help the Ukraine —and all those other satellite prisoners who are waiting and watching for an

opportunity to escape from their prison—we are forced back to considering the problem of Russia. At the moment, our Western policy seems to be based on preserving equal if not superior strength in both nuclear and traditional weapons as a constant threat—or as a constant source of defence. There is, however, this other policy which Mr. Nehru advocates, and to which President Eisenhower is now, apparently, being persuaded—the policy of what might be termed conciliation.
Let us consider those two alternatives. My own opinion is that conciliation has failed. In one form or another it has been tried for the last twelve years—practically since Yalta. We therefore have to consider the other. As far as I can see, neither side can stand indefinitely the economic and financial strain of constantly mounting and competing costs. It cannot go on indefinitely, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East has said. If it does go on we here shall certainly wreck our Welfare State, endanger full employment and all those other requirements of the civilised life which we have come to value. I am doubtful, too, whether the United States is prepared to shoulder the burden much longer, especially as there is a growing isolationist movement there.
On the Russian side, as I know—and as all hon. Members who have visited it know—her agriculture and her factories are denuded of the minimum manpower necessary to bring about that Utopia which those in power constantly offer to their people as a sort of carrot. They want those men from the army and from the great forces stationed in the satellite countries—they want them on the land and in the factories and the yards. They want them in order to carry out, if they can, the constant promises of a better standard of living which they have given to the people.
What are we to do? East and West are being driven into this economic struggle, the end of which might easily be as fatal as physical destruction by arms. There is only one way, though I do not say that it might be any more successful than have the other efforts. That way would be for the N.A.T.O. countries to say to Russia, in effect, "We want peace, not self-destruction. We imagine that you want the same thing. If you are so fearful of attack, we are prepared to guarantee to come to your assistance


with all the force and power at our disposal if you are attacked, provided that that attack comes from outside the satellite States; and, of course, we would expect reciprocal treatment."

Mr. H. Hynd: We said that to Israel, and then bombed the side that was attacked.

Sir T. Moore: I do not see that that is relevant at the moment.
That approach would inevitably be accompanied by an agreed measure of disarmament, both nuclear and traditional, by the withdrawal of Russian troops from the satellite States—including the Baltic States. We, in turn, would undertake to withdraw all forces from Western Germany and other N.A.T.O. bastions and forts in Europe, although it would, of course, be necessary for each country to maintain an adequate force for its own internal security and for overseas commitments.
That is one possible suggestion that might meet with success, but it must be put in hand quickly. The foundations of Soviet power are beginning to crumble, not alone in the satellite States, but, as we have been told, in Russia itself. If that is true, it may well be that, in terror at falling, the Russian rulers may, like the maddened Hitler, try to bring down the world with them. That is why urgency is the most important factor in all this business. I hope that Her Majesty's Government, as one of the chief components of N.A.T.O., will take steps to bring these suggestions to the notice of their colleagues.

8.26 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton: The hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) has spoken of the existence of military blocs. In particular, he referred to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. I should have thought that one of the lessons to be learned from the Hungarian tragedy is the complete obsolescence of the idea that international policy can be furthered by means of military blocs. However, I will deal with that point in a few minutes.
We are all agreed that the tragedy now being enacted in Hungary is all the more appalling because of the feeling of helplessness experienced on all sides of the

House. In the main, this debate has so far been harmonious and constructive. I hope that I will not disturb that atmosphere too much, but I must make some reference to the link, which, on this side, it is agreed there is, between what has happened in Suez and what has happened in Hungary.
Before dealing with that, may I say that as, I think, a known opponent of Communism I am glad that the events in Hungary have now stripped Communism naked of any pretence of belief in freedom, democracy, or even the elementary human decencies. What has happened, and is happening, there is an overwhelming defeat for the Soviet Union. especially in the uncommitted areas of the world. It has been amazing—and here I might get some support from the other side of the House—to note how India, after what I believe to have been some prevarication on this issue, has been compelled, through the force of public opinion in India, to denounce what has happened in Hungary.
For that reason, profound importance attaches to the present visit of Mr. Nehru to the United States. Those facts must have been apparent to the leaders of the Soviet Union when they went into Hungary. Their amazing stupidity in the face of those facts must have its explanation in the deep divisions that must exist internally in the Soviet Union, and we in this House should do and say nothing which would tend to discourage the emergence of any moderating influences that might be trying to gain power in the Kremlin.
I want now to refer to the point that I made at the outset, namely, the fact that this development in Hungary has exposed in the most brutal way the obsolescence of military force as an instrument of national policy. That is the painful and humiliating but, nevertheless, salutary lesson that has been given to both Britain in Suez and the Soviet Union in Hungary, and if that is sufficiently realised in the Soviet Union and by our own Conservative Government, it will obviously give a new impetus to the new proposals for disarmament.
One of the basic reasons for the unrest not only in Hungary, but in Eastern Europe as a whole, and indeed, elsewhere, has been the tendency to combine too rapid industrialisation with a too heavy


armaments programme. The Russians have confessed as much on this point. More consumer goods have been promised. For those reasons, I think that the prospects of a further advance on the disarmament front are promising.
I want for a few moments to try to put my finger on some of the origins of the tragedy in Hungary. If we trace the origins from the very beginning, from the end of the war, I think we find them in the misplaced optimism of Hungary and of other countries, as well as the misplaced optimism of the Western Powers in the immediate post-war years, concerning the aims and objectives of Stalin's policy. We allowed the Russians to get a foothold in Eastern Europe, and we found, too late, a Red Army of occupation, plus an admittedly brilliant and dedicated Rakosi, the Communist leader in Hungary, plus a divided opposition in Hungary, and, ironically enough, generous American economic aid, which had a tremendous influence in Hungary in stabilising the currency and allowing the Communists to cash in economically. All those things helped the consolidation of Communist Party power.
In July, 1950, there were 4,000 Social Democrats and trade unionists arrested in two days in Hungary. None of them was tried. All were accused of collaborating with the Labour Party in Britain and with the American Federation of Labour. The Hungarian National Council of Trade Unions was set up, and the right to strike was denied to the workers. Piece rates and work competition were the order of the day. The chief functionary of that trade union organisation, Antal Apro, said that the only function assigned to the trade unions was to intensify work competition and to do everything possible to protect the party leadership against attack.
I was interested in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Ledger), who sought to emphasise the need not to over-exaggerate the situation, but if he had heard Anna Kethly speaking at our party meeting the other night he would realise that it is impossible to overpaint the picture of the exploitation of the workers in Hungary.
After Stalin's death in 1953, there was a change in Hungary. It was, indeed, a turning point. There is any amount of

evidence to support that contention, in Hungary and elsewhere. We had all kinds of manifestations. There was the Austrian Peace Treaty, the healing of the breach with Tito, exchange visits here there and everywhere, and no lack of confessions of shortcomings and promises of better things. That. I think, is the explanation of the difference between what happened in Poland and what happened in Hungary.
I wish to link, and make no apologies for doing so, what happened in Eastern Europe and what happened in Egypt. On 30th October the Soviet Government promised the withdrawal of Soviet tanks from Budapest and to examine the possibility of withdrawing Russian troops from the other countries signatory to the Warsaw Pact. On 3rd November came the Soviet order to occupy Hungary.
The question I ask, to which I should like an answer or, at least, the Government's estimate of what the answer is, is this: what happened between 30th October, when the Russians agreed to withdraw their troops, and 3rd November, when the Soviet order came to occupy Hungary? It is very significant that the only international event of world-shaking importance which happened between those dates was the British and French bombing of Egypt.
The Government were extremely sensitive about this point when it was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker); they were extremely sensitive to the charge that the two incidents were related. Whatever the truth might be about that—and this is no time to debate that particular issue—it is undoubtedly true that our action in Egypt served to blur the differences between ourselves and Soviet imperialism at a time when they should have been glaringly clear to the whole world.
We were then morally bankrupt and politically disunited from our allies at a time when moral rectitude—which was scorned by the Minister of Defence—and political unity with our friends might have done a great deal to prevent the cruel march of events in Hungary. I believe that time will prove that that was the greatest tragedy of our adventure in Egypt. Yet, paradoxically enough, events in Hungary might have done something


to repair the damage done by our stupidity in Egypt. Soviet barbarism in Hungary might have caused the Arab world to hesitate a great deal before seeking the embraces of that particular bear.
Internationally, both Britain and the Soviet Union have suffered humiliating defeats. Both have sought by military means, with guns and bombs, to solve their problems. It has been proved for all the world to see that military blocs are outmoded weapons in the solution of international problems. Colonel Nasser has thumbed his nose at thousands of millions of pounds worth of British arms, and the Hungarian people have spat at Soviet tanks.
That is the lesson we must learn. As a result of the use of Soviet tanks, bombs and artillery in Hungary, and our use of them in Egypt, there is now more turbulence in Central Europe and more turbulence in the Middle East than there was when we started out. We have still, in the event, to get round to negotiation.
This is the message we are trying to give the Government. It is up to them now to take the initiative, to give a lead on disarmament. Before these events came, a reduction in our defence expenditure was imminent, and it is now more than ever necessary. If we can get agreement among all the Powers to cut armaments and spend every penny of the money saved on economic rehabilitation in the underdeveloped areas of the world, that will do much more to safeguard world peace than anything else we could possibly do.
I end on this domestic note. We still have a tiny minority in this country who tend to apologise for and to pander to the Soviet Union and all its doings in Hungary and elsewhere. This tragedy in Hungary will have done a good deal if it has served to open the eyes of those people. Let me say this, brutally and frankly, to the small minority in my own party who have been wont to pander to that particular doctrine. If this tragedy has served to dispel that tendency, if it has served to get rid of the apathy in the trade union movement, which has allowed Communists to get control in vitally important parts of it, good will have come out of a wretched evil.

8.42 p.m.

Mr. John Peyton: With much of what the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton) said one could not possibly disagree. I welcome particularly what he said in summing up his impressions of this terrible tragedy in Hungary, that it had stripped Communism of any pretence of belief in freedom or even in human decency. I join issue strongly with the hon. Member, however, when he went on to suggest that our action in Egypt had been responsible for Soviet action in Hungary.

Mr. Hamilton: Mr. Hamilton indicated dissent.

Mr. Peyton: Perhaps I am putting it too strongly. I hope I do not put it too strongly in saying that the hon. Member suggested that it had at least given the Russians the excuse.
I would say to the hon. Member that the methods employed by the Soviet Union in Hungary have been wholly different from ours in the Egyptian issue. If the Soviet Union had been in any way influenced by the action which we took in the Middle East it would at least be reasonable to ask that they should follow the same standards as we have subsequently set. They have refused to have any regard for Resolutions of the United Nations and have maintained a refusal to admit United Nations representatives. Those points alone distinguish this whole action entirely from anything that we did in the Middle East.
I want to revert to a point which was made by the hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Zilliacus), who, I regret, is no longer present. Indeed, he was in some part echoing what my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Sir R. Boothby) had said—namely, that we must negotiate. Of course we must negotiate. It is, however, only right and fair that we should assert that the Western nations have together for years been trying desperately to negotiate.
At the end of the war, we in the West all hoped that we might continue, as we did during the war, to co-operate with the Russians. Throughout this past gloomy decade, those hopes have been constantly disappointed by the ruthless and cynical policies which have been persistently pursued by the Soviet Union.
The House will perhaps forgive me if I say how I welcome the difference in tone of this debate in contrast to those other rather barren debates which we had upon the Middle East. I realise, of course, that feelings were very strong on both sides of the House and I do not wish to go into the issues which were then discussed. I differ very strongly from the views which were held by hon. Members opposite, but I wonder how much the nation is indebted to the House of Commons for its conduct over those six weeks. The Opposition has undoubtedly privileges and rights in this matter, and I do not challenge them, but how far is it wise for an Opposition to pin Ministers down to the Government Front Bench? How far is it right and wise for the Opposition of any party to pin Ministers down at a time when very great affairs are in process?

Mr. Warbey: Will the hon. Member at least pay some attention to the views expressed by the Prime Minister of Ceylon, the Prime Minister of India and the Prime Minister of Canada showing how the Opposition clearly played its part in helping to save the Commonwealth from dissolution?

Mr. Peyton: I am afraid that the hon. Member has misunderstood my point. Certainly all the arguments can be made clear, but I do not know whether the House of Commons is ever wise to engage in a policy of attrition against Ministers. I think that that is an issue. Hon. and right hon. Members opposite hope eventually to be on this side of the House.

Mr. Aneurin Bevan: rose—

Mr. Peyton: The right hon. Gentleman is no doubt full of hopes that it will not be very long until he is sitting on this side of the House. Very well, I do not believe that it is right for any Opposition, regardless of party, to make it impossible for Ministers to carry out the business of Government.

Mr. Bevan: This seems to me to be rather irrelevant to what we have been discussing and it is quite out of accord with the gratification which the hon. Member expressed about the previous part of the debate. What he is really suggesting is that whereas dictatorships

destroy Parliament by armed force we should be allowed to destroy it by acquiescence. There is always the argument, whenever there is high feeling, that the Opposition should not pin the Government down. The same argument was used against Charles James Fox when the Government threw away the American Colonies.

Mr. Peyton: I am not saying that anybody should destroy discussion but that the House of Commons, and particularly the Opposition, should not abuse the rights which accompany its responsibilities.
The point that I seek to make in the debate is that we made a mistake during the Middle East debate, and that perhaps we would make a mistake now if we attempted too much to look at one event in one place, taken out of both its geographical context and its time context. I think that we all admit that we are facing all over the world the problem of militant Communism. It may well be good to suggest negotiation. We must all he prepared to accept the alternative of negotiation rather than resort to force. Nevertheless, it has at no time been made sufficiently clear that in Eastern Europe, as in the Middle East, we are facing the undoubted menace of militant Russian Communism and we, in the Western nations, are constantly finding ourselves at a disadvantage.
The Communist policy is at all times clear. The policy of the West has never been sufficiently clear or sufficiently concerted between the various Powers. We have a more or less agreed policy in Western Europe, but only in Western Europe. In the Middle East there was a lamentable lack of any concerted policy between ourselves and our allies, and in these tragic events in Eastern Europe again there is that same lack of any substantial agreement.
What will happen if the events of Hungary spread? What will happen if they are repeated, as is only too likely, because it is historically the Nemesis of tyrants that they cannot relax the pressure on the people whom they control. History is full of examples showing that when a tyrant relaxes pressure is the time when an outbreak will take place. I do not suggest that it is more than a possibility that events in Hungary will be


repeated in Poland and in Eastern Germany. But can any of us on either side of the House say that we in this country are agreed, let alone agreed with our allies in the West, as to the policy which the West should properly pursue under those circumstances?
The right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) has said on one or two occasions, with telling effect, that he believes that opinions are stirring and changing in Russia. He believes also that it is impossible ultimately—and this must be the root of our common faith —for the Russians to win in Hungary, in other words, to defeat the human spirit. I share that belief with the right hon. Gentleman, but that is no comfort to the Hungarian people. It offers no relief to the Poles or the East Germans, should they find themselves in the same tragic circumstances as Hungary is now passing through.
Affairs in We Middle East and this appalling series of circumstances in Hungary have one common root, and that is the terrible Communist conspiracy which has been torturing the world ever since the war. Here I want to make a point relating to the suggestion made by the right hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson). He suggested that we on this side of the House were constantly sneering at the United Nations. I want to say clearly that it is not my desire 10 sneer at the United Nations, and I am certain that it is not the desire of my hon. Friends. Undoubtedly that impression has been given simply because we have thought that hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House have been too ready to place a glib reliance on the United Nations which neither the events nor the facts have warranted.
We are in a dilemma here. Let us face it. There is the Communist bloc in the United Nations, and the Communists now stand revealed absolutely naked without any pretence of any belief in either freedom or human decencies. That is the great dilemma for us and for the United Nations to face. Let us also recall that the United Nations is a human institution. It will take many years before it grows in tradition and strength and prestige, as we all hope it will, and we have to be patient with it.

Mr. H. Hynd: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, does he not recall that in the case of the trouble in Egypt the United Nations passed a Resolution asking both sides to withdraw, and thereby stop the fighting, and that we vetoed it?

Mr. Peyton: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I do not want to go into that now. Instead I want to call the attention of the House to a masterly article written by Professor Gilbert Murray in the Sunday Times last week, which he ended by saying that the great danger is that we shall all look on and see the civilised world rebarbarised. I have said before that we must attempt to negotiate, but let us remember as a fact that the record of Communism is an evil one. It is one of bad faith throughout its history.
Consequently, I would say to the Government that we should by all means seek a new initiative by negotiation, but before we do that—I apportion no blame whatever here—let us establish a measure of agreement, urgently necessary in circumstances of great peril, among the nations of the West who share a common faith and common ideal. If we do not, it will be to our peril.
Also, in seeking negotiations, agreement and, from this cloudy future, the elusive prize of peace, let us remember that we are here dealing with something which has revealed itself to be evil, and that if one seeks to compromise with evil, one does not in that way do anything to establish or strengthen the cause of what is right and just.

8.56 p.m.

Mr. Donald Wade: While I was one of those who pressed for a debate on Hungary, and while I should have had a very uneasy conscience if we had dispersed for the Christmas Recess without having debated the subject, I am well aware that there is precious little that we can actually do. Mere words are tragically inadequate. However, the least we can do is to try to ascertain whether all practicable steps are being taken. I wish merely to put a few questions to elicit what is being done and what might be done.
Throughout the debate one theme has been the obvious desire for a settlement


of the Eastern European problem by negotiation. I do not know whether the Soviet Union is willing or anxious to negotiate, but I should have thought that the chances would be increased if the Soviet Union found that she was losing, and continuing to lose, the diplomatic war, and that public opinion was continuing to turn against her in the uncommitted countries of the world as a consequence of her aggression in Hungary. If that be so, then any steps which, while not having an immediate material effect on conditions in Hungary, help in the war of ideas are worth consideration.
A number of proposals have been put forward. The first may seem to some hon. Members to he impracticable. I understand that the Secretary-General of the United Nations was authorised to go to Hungary himself. I believe that he is a brave man and anxious to do anything possible to uphold the authority of the United Nations, but what he can do is greatly limited by the Resolutions passed and by the fact that he has no executive power. He cannot go unless the country is willing to accept him.
However, I cannot find anything in the Charter to prevent a resolution being passed authorising the Secretary-General to go to Hungary whether the Government there wishes it or not. I do not know what would happen. Presumably he would land there. I doubt whether even the present Government of Hungary would use physical force against him. It may well be that they would send him away again. However, the incident would help to focus attention upon the way in which the United Nations has been defied. The effect would have been more dramatic if it had been done immediately upon defiance of the first United Nations Resolution, but even now I do not think it is too late.
There is also something to be said for the proposals contained in the Motion on the Order Paper suggesting that diplomatic representatives in Hungary should be asked to prepare their own report, as Hungary has refused to accept observers. The report could be brought before the United Nations Assembly. That would also help to focus attention, and it would have its effect upon countries like India and other so-called uncommitted countries.
If those proposals fail, we may have to consider Article 41. I should like to know what is the attitude of the Government on the subject of Article 41, and whether discussions are taking place with other Governments represented at the United Nations. That Article was drawn up specifically to deal with the case where measures should be taken not involving the use of armed force. Whilst I concede the many difficulties involved, I should like to be satisfied that Article 41 is not being ignored merely because it might do us economic harm.
On the subject of the B.B.C. broadcasts, I do not believe that the Soviet Union is entirely insensible to public opinion, and I support wholeheartedly the remarks of the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald). If I may say so, the comment of the Foreign Secretary during his speech appeared to indicate that the Foreign Secretary had missed, or partly missed, the point. If I understood him rightly, he said that broadcasts would continue to the Eastern European countries. But that is not the whole point; it is to the other countries of the world that the overseas broadcasts are so important.
If we believe in this war of ideas at all, it is not sufficient merely to continue our broadcasts to Eastern European countries. The effect on the Soviet Union would be just as great if we had the right kind of broadcasts to Russia and other countries throughout the world, particularly to the countries of the Middle East and India. I am convinced that we should increase and not lessen this policy of making known the stark facts on what has been happening in Hungary and that we should continue to do so until there is a change of policy.
I wish to say a few words on the humanitarian subject of the refugees. A great deal has been done, and is being done, by the Government and by various voluntary organisations, but I should like to be satisfied that everything possible is being done. The problem for Austria is almost overwhelming. Can we not give her more financial aid and step up the work of bringing refugees out of Austria? I am not entirely satisfied that the fullest possible use has been made of voluntary offers in this country to take refugees. I am not sure that the fullest possible use has been made of the local authorities.
I gain the impression—I hope that I am wrong—that in France this subject has been dealt with rather more enthusiastically and realistically than it has been in this country. My hon. Friends and myself saw the Home Secretary on this subject. I will not go into that in detail, but I hope that something will be said about the steps that have been taken to deal with the bottleneck and the other problems that have led to curtailment of the acceptance of refugees from Austria.
I know that places are being found for a considerable number of refugee students at the universities, but I should like to know whether the numbers are limited as the result of the financial circumstances of the universities. Are the necessary grants being made to enable the students to be taken and places found for them at the universities, because this is a very exceptional wave of refugees and the proportion of young people is very much higher than in any other case that we have known since the war?
Finally, on the subject of refugees, I should like to refer to a point made earlier in the debate. Unfortunately, there has arisen the impression that refugees who come to this country will thereby forfeit the chance of moving on elsewhere, Many of these refugees want to get as far away from Eastern Europe as they can and hope to go to the United States or various countries in the Commonwealth. Unfortunately, there is the impression that if they come to England or another European country, they will have less chance of moving on.
It is most important that something should be done to correct that. I want to refer to a letter which was quoted earlier in the debate, that from Dr. Kellerman which was published in The Times on Monday. The conclusion of the letter was:
I am quite certain that nothing would contribute more towards easing the present misery of the Hungarian refugees in this country than a clear-cut and precise statement from the United States Government, translated into Hungarian and distributed in every refugee camp, setting out the United States Government's policy as regards the admission of Hungarian refugees into the United States.
If this is not done, and done quickly, the officials in charge of these camps will have an extremely difficult task on their hands and our prestige and reputation for being an honest and trustworthy nation will be damaged beyond repair, because I have heard already many a voice to the effect that 11,000 people have been lured to England under false pretences.

If that disturbing observation is at all justified—and I hope it is not—what steps are being taken to correct that unfortunate impression?
In conclusion, this is not an occasion on which we should count the cost. The long-term effect of the heroism of the Hungarians is very difficult to calculate. The extent to which they have been willing to go to achieve self-determination and to gain personal liberty is beyond estimation, and it is clear that our indebtedness to the people of Hungary cannot easily he repaid.

9.8 p.m.

Major H. Legge-Bourke: We have all approached the debate with heavy hearts and very conscious that above all else we must be beware of pity, unless we are certain that we can translate it into action. The contributions to the debate have been constructive throughout, and I hope that I shall follow the example. Before referring to what the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) said. I want to make a few comments about what has happened.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) referred to the kindly nature of the Russians in their own country, I could not help but interrupt him, because last Saturday evening I spent about four and half hours with sonic of the refugees now residing in my constituency. The behaviour of the Mongolian troops which the Russians moved in to replace those Russians who had handed their arms to the freedom fighters—which is apparently what the first lot did—beggars description. I should like to recount one incident which might illustrate as well as anything the sort of thing which the Hungarian refugees have been suffering.
There was apparently a group of several hundred women walking down a road. In the opposite direction came a line of tanks. Those tanks could have avoided the women with the greatest of ease by going on either side of them. They did not; they ploughed straight through them. That is the sort of thing that has been going on. The Russian troops had been indoctrinated with the idea that they were defeating a wicked Fascist plan of the West to prevent the Hungarian revolution. They honestly believe that in five years' time they will control the whole of Europe.
I never knew before what the phrase "fighting mad" really meant until I heard what the refugees had to say. Who can blame them for being fighting mad, for believing that what they tried to do was to stop a great wave of tyranny from sweeping right across Europe, and for begging us to act now before it is too late and before that happens? The eldest of the people to whom I spoke was 47 years of age and the youngest 18. The average age of a group of twenty or so of them was 27. Many of them were girls. There are only two married couples in the whole camp, which has some 250 people in it. The girls fought side by side with the men.
Those refugees believe that what happened to them is going to happen in every other European country. They even go so far as to say that unless the West acts now Europe will be over-run and that these islands will be threatened. They say that they would be proud to see all their relatives in Hungary destroyed rather than that we should do nothing. Through an interpreter I spoke to these people. He was one of the most excellent interpreters I have ever come across. He was a young Hungarian who left Hungary some years ago and whose parents now live in France. He has given up the whole of his Christmas vacation from Cambridge University to be with these people and to try to help them. Through him I tried to convey to these Hungarians the following problem.
Are we right, in an endeavour to save Hungary, to risk humanity in Europe? That seems to me to be the question that hangs over the whole of this debate, and that is why I say, let us beware of pity unless we are certain that we can implement it. The problem that faces us is whether or not we should dare say to the Soviet Union, now or at any other time. "Unless you not only stop what you are doing and get out of all the satellite States and back into your own territory we are prepared to drop a hydrogen bomb on you." Unless we are prepared to say that, then we had better say nothing at all.
The compassion that we have for these refugees is a matter about which we can do something, and I want to say a word or two about it in a moment.

Mr. Arthur Moyle: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman really trying to convince the House that in view of what has happened in Poland and Hungary the Russians would attempt, in face of those risings, to over-run Europe?

Major Legge-Bourke: No, I am not. What I am trying to convey is what these young refugees themselves think. I am trying to tell the House the spirit that is running through these people and to emphasise the difficulty that we are going to have in making them understand our approach to the problem which confronts them.
If the free world wants to remain free it must make up its mind whether it believes that there is the slightest chance of negotiations ever succeeding in stopping this process. Once every so often. as Lord Rosebery, a former Prime Minister, once said, the Russian Empire feels the desire for expansion, and the action taken by the Western Powers to try to prevent that has much the same effect as pruning has upon a healthy young tree. Time means less to them than to us. We tend to see things in terms of our generation only t they look further ahead. They do not mind if it takes a century, so long as it happens in the end.
I do not know whether the right ethic for us to accept is:
Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof
or whether we should say. "Rather than see our posterity condemned to be overrun by these brutes we in this generation should take the supreme risk." None of us in this House—certainly no one who has not the advantages of the Government, with all the advice that only a Government can have—is really qualified to judge, but I would say that the duty of the Western world is to make up its mind here and now whether it has forever banished the idea of using military force to stop the Russians coming any further West or spreading into any territories which they are not entitled to occupy, or whether it should concentrate now and for always upon negotiations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Sir R. Boothby) made a great plea for reopening negotiations. I agree with him. I personally believe that the other alternative is a risk that the world cannot afford to take.
But if the Government said tonight that the Americans had agreed to take what we would all regard as appropriate action I should back the Government, because I believe that they have information which would entitle them to say that. But my own guess is that no British Government will dare to say that, certainly if the American tradition is carried on in the way in which it has always been carried on before. The Americans never act until it is too late, and they never take action in time to prevent a catastrophe. They never have done so yet and I do not believe that they ever will it is not in their nature. I hope that no one will think that I am screaming at the Americans by saying that, but we must face the facts.
Neither country likes war. We are sometimes prepared to take action to prevent a war or to stop a war. The Americans themselves usually join in a war much too late, and on the winning side. We might as well face these facts and not pretend that they are otherwise.
I now turn to the actual condition of the refugees themselves. They have three great needs at the moment. The first is for Hungarian literature, especially newspapers. I do not know what is amusing hon. Members opposite. If the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) would carry on his conversation somewhere else, if he does not want to listen to me. I should be very grateful.

Mr. Bevan: I was merely making some admiring expressions about the hon. and gallant Member's style.

Major Legge-Bourke: The right hon. Gentleman has never paid me a compliment before. I am beginning to wonder whether he is coming over to this side or whether I shall be going over there.
I would make a special plea to the Government to see whether anything can be done to provide the Hungarians here with newspapers printed in their own language. They are experiencing a great lack of information as to what has been happening since they left Hungary, and they are totally unable to have newspapers printed in their own language. It would be a great help if the Foreign Office or some other Department could make some arrangements in this matter.
I understand that the organisation of the camp to which I have referred is, roughly, that the British Council is paying £3 a week per head for subsistence, with is. 6d. a day pocket money. That pocket money, paid on a Friday, has usually vanished by Tuesday. Until they get into profitable work again, these people are going to be at a loose end for most of the week.
In addition to needing newspapers, they have a very great need for sports and gymnasium equipment to give them exercise. We want to avoid people who are collected together in camps with nothing to do having little opportunity of taking physical exercise. Those of us who from time to time during the war had to experience periods in base area camps know how easy it was to become what we called "browned off". No doubt the Hungarians have a more descriptive word.
It would be a great help if we could do something about providing cigarettes which would be more to their choice than those manufactured in this country. This is a great difficulty as they are used to rather strong tobacco—probably Balkan or even Russian tobacco, I do not know. They find that the cigarettes they get here very insipid and their pocket money does not permit them to buy very many after the weekend.
These are minor details, but they refer to a few of the creature comforts about which we can do something. Tribute has already been paid to the W.V.S. and its work in providing clothing, but some camps still have not two towels per refugee. As I gather from the Foreign Secretary that we are prepared to take in more refugees, these things have to be realised. The voluntary organisations have to be relied upon, but encouragement from the Government would help.
The camp in my constituency, which belongs to a growers' co-operative, is already tending to run into debt as a result of the slowness with which funds come through. I am not blaming anyone about the slowness of the funds coming in. I hope that the Express newspapers will be a little more charitable to the British Council over this matter of refugees. The British Council deserves commendation for what it is trying to do. It is important that voluntary associations should not be put in an embarrassing position if that can be avoided. I hope


that the funds which are being raised will not all be spent in Austria or in sending supplies to Hungary, but that we shall not forget the great need for them in this country.
I conclude on a rather different note. I am afraid that ever since the decision was taken to set up the State of Israel, the United Nations was, in my eyes, virtually discredited. At that time I made a speech in this House. I have never quoted myself in this House before, but I feel that tonight I must do so. On that occasion I said:
The longer we remain members of the Security Council the longer our prestige is going to go down in the world. The time has now come when we have to take very rapid and decisive steps to try and bring the Western countries and the British Commonwealth and Empire together, We should accept the fact that so long as we remain members of the United Nations, we shall do nothing but harm to ourselves, very little good to anybody else and only serve the ends of the Soviet Union which is determined to split the world into two."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 10th December, 1948; Vol. 459, c. 763.]
I said that in a speech on 10th December, 1948. Later the Korean trouble came, and obviously one could not have attacked the United Nations while that campaign was running.
In the light of what the United Nations has been able to do politically over Hungary, I feel that the time has come when this country ought seriously to consider whether or not we should remain a member of that organisation. The welfare work of the United Nations ought to go on and there must be an international body for that, but I believe that politically the United Nations is as dead as a doornail. The sooner we face that and concentrate on making N.A.T.O. into something, the better.

9.25 p.m.

Miss Jennie Lee: At one time in his speech I thought that the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) was going to declare war simultaneosuly on the Soviet Union and on the United States.
Apart from temporary aberrations of that kind, taking us back to earlier centuries, I feel that the mood of the debate has been a sad one and that all of us are trying to think, in contemporary terms, whether there is anything we can do to help in the Hungarian situation.
I know of nothing which has more stirred the conscience, the sympathy and the imagination of millions of people in this country, unless I go back a long way to the days of the Spanish Civil War. The Spanish Civil War was the prelude to the Second World War, and the questions which we are asking now are: what is happening in Hungary, and what winds are blowing over the world at the present time? We know that this is something affecting far more than Hungary.
I have just returned from the Balkans. In fact, I have been in Belgrade. Our reactions to the Hungarian situation are very vivid, but when one finds onself in Yugoslavia, a territory adjoining Hungary, the awareness which one has becomes sensitised a hundredfold.
This is a very complicated tragedy which the world faces. In visiting Yugoslavia, one finds not only that tensions between nations are increasing but, also, that tensions within nations are often taking ugly forms. We are all delighted that Marshal Tito and his Government should say that the workers' councils in Hungary must be supported, but it is a sad thing—and one must try to understand its meaning—that rigid monolithic Communism is being insisted upon not only inside the Soviet Union but inside Yugoslavia, for Marshal Tito is applying the same rules inside his country.
It is true, as the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Sir R. Boothby) said, that the Soviet bloc is not yet accepting the authority of the United Nations. It is also a fact that, in the end, France and Britain accepted its authority in the Suez Canal dispute. One point which those who try to understand how the Communist mind works must realise is that the Suez adventure is related in the Communist mind to the Hungarian situation. It was impossible for an orthodox Soviet leader to believe that France and Britain would go into the Suez area without the United States being indirectly informed. The Soviet leaders did not know how devoted to private enterprise are hon. Members opposite. We know, and we know how capricious they can be.
Although there was no open agreement with the United States we must accept the fact that the Soviet Union said, "Of course, N.A.T.O. is involved. Of course,


the whole West is involved." They were trying to think out, on rigid theoretical grounds, what would come next. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Aberdeen. Shire, East, when he makes his usual speeches, not to damn the United Nations with faint praise so completely, because the United Nations made a considerable contribution in at least stopping that part of the damage and bringing a hope that we could start thinking again.
When the news of the Hungarian revolution first crossed the frontier there was terrific excitement, as we all know. For instance, a former vice-president of Yugoslavia who found that his country, with Czechoslovakia and Roumania, had refused to agree to United Nations observers visiting Hungary, took his political life in his hands. He was already in conflict with the Government, but he sent out to the world an article protesting against Yugoslav policy at that time. As it is a crime for a citizen in Yugoslavia to disagree effectively with the Government's international policy, he has just been sentenced to three years' solitary confinement. The indictment was made in public—the trial was held in private.
We have to ask ourselves: what is happening in the world, not only in relation to tensions between nations but to the tension within a nation? We all regard Yugoslavia as being a much milder Communist State than is Soviet Russia. What is the fear? Is not the fear now abroad, hunger—and there is plenty of material not only of men and women driven by hardship—but of men and women everywhere hungering for liberty, and it is contagious?
What can we do to make, not only the Russians less afraid, but the Marshal Titos less afraid'? What can we do to stand by the best spirits in every country who have tried to match the courage of the Hungarians by taking every risk themselves? Knowing the agonies, what can we do? I hope that Her Majesty's Government will take the initiative immediately on one specific point that we have talked about in this House scores of times, though nothing immediate or vivid enough has been done.
We have to get in contact with Western Germany. To that end we have to use national relations and party relations. It may be that there are some hon. Members opposite who have friends among

Conservative Germans, and there are probably those on this side with friends among Socialist Germans. If only we can be absolutely certain that Western Germany would agree to be part of a neutralised zone we could begin clearing that up ourselves. But we have to take the initiative and say to Soviet Russia. "Will you accept this as a starting point —that you will have a unified Germany and a neutralised Germany?"
The importance of this is that we must give Khrushchev a victory somewhere. Behind Khrushchev, behind those elements in the Soviet Union that have been tentatively seeking to thaw the cold war, there are other Russians. There are the military Russians, who think solely in terms of military power. There are the Zhukovs, and the others. Their type exists, not only in Russia, but in all countries. I am sometimes terrified, when I hear hon. Members opposite talking of international affairs, at the thought that they still think that anything can be solved not with a cruiser or a tank, but with a bomb.
There are Russians who are like that, too, those whose case against Khrushchev and Malenkov is that they tried to ease the tensions, and, by trying to ease the tensions, brought on the sequence of events—Poland, Hungary, the theoretical and ideological quarrel with Marshal Tito. We have to get rid of the illiterate notion that everyone inside Russia thinks alike. First, there is the Khrushchev group, trying a policy of easement. Immediately behind that group one finds not the liberal Russians but the 100 per cent. military Russians, who are the greatest danger of all. But behind them, again, there are other Russians.
There is no sense in imagining that all the blood baths that took place under Stalin resulted simply because he was a madman. On that point I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Gorton (Mr. Zilliacus). I apologise if I misunderstood him, but I got the impression that he thought that everyone inside Russia had been so conditioned by forty years of Communist values that when they looked outside and saw, for instance, a rising in Hungary, they were convinced that it was merely counter-revolutionary.

Mr. Zilliacus: I was trying to make the point that there was a struggle precisely between the moderates and the


Stalinists who acted on conditioned reflexes, and the two events, the crumbling of the Nagy Government and the Anglo-French invasion or bombing of Egypt, produced a situation in which the conditioned reflexes of the Stalinists came out on top.

Miss Lee: I am glad that it was not quite as I understood it to be.
The important thing is that people talk inside Russia as well as in this country, and we should make the first move from the West—ourselves, perhaps with our American friends, but let us get it started so that, inside Russia, the conversation changes and the people begin to say. "Look, there is the possibility of a neutralised, a united Germany." We can then begin to proceed from this nightmare world of fear into which we have got.
Then we can ask the Russians whether they will make a counter-move. I think we are all agreed on that. That is the practical way to meet the problem of the Hungarian people. We have got to think of a world policy, and we have got to begin it somewhere. I am certain that Germany is the place where we can begin it, in order that the great majority of people in Soviet Russia, Hungary and everywhere else, who so desperately want peace, can be given the beginning of hope that their Governments will negotiate instead of fighting one another.

9.37 p.m.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: During the ten years in which I have had the honour to sit in this House, spread over about twenty years, I have hardly ever spoken in a foreign affairs debate, and I certainly would not do so now if I did not feel an irresistable urge to say something about this desperate situation in Hungary today.
The perfidy of Russia and the Russian army needs no description, but we must try—indeed, I think that this is the great purpose of this debate—to offer a few constructive points which might help. I should like to say something which I do not think has been said in so many words, and that is that I hope that nothing in the existing situation will induce the Government to weaken in any way the forces of N.A.T.O. or of the British Army as they are in Germany today. It would

be the greatest possible mistake, at a time when Russia is under the greatest internal pressure, for us to show any weakness of that kind at all.
I hope that we shall go most carefully into the suggestions which have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Sir R. Boothby) about the further and better use of N.A.T.O. As the Hungarian nation fights on, it will become increasingly apparent that something will have to be done beyond the mere offering of first aid. The United Nations ought at once to expel from its membership the Kadar Government, which is a treacherous and unconstitutional Government. I should like that to be done with the utmost despatch. After all, if the Secretary-General is not allowed to enter Budapest, why should the Hungarian Government be tolerated at the United Nations at all?
Beyond that—and I am taking the line which my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) adopted earlier—I should like to see the Secretary-General present himself, dramatically, with a large body of supporters at the frontier of Hungary, and demand admittance. If that were done, it would be very difficult indeed for the Hungarians to refuse admission. One knows how it is; when the prospective guest writes and asks if he may come and stay, there is plenty of time to find reasons for saying. "No"; but if he knocks at the door and asks to come in, it is very difficult to refuse him. The neighbours are apt to hear of it and think badly of one. I believe that the effort really should be made.
The Communist Party in this country is trying to discredit the great Hungarian leader Cardinal Mindszenty and make it appear that he is a reactionary and Fascist influence. The House may be surprised that I should detain it by any mention of this matter, because I do not imagine that any hon. Member thinks that any such allegation is true. Nevertheless, what we say here has a profound effect and goes far beyond these walls, and I should like to take the opportunity to refute the suggestion most categorically.
On 3rd November the Cardinal, before he had to seek refuge in the American


Embassy, made a very important broadcast, which, most fortunately, the B.B.C. and other people were careful to monitor. In the course of that broadcast, he said:
I, in accordance with my position, am outside parties and will stand above parties. I hereby warn everyone not to indulge in factional strife and divergencies after the splendid unity of the October days.
There was something else the Cardinal said which I think may give help to the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Ledger), whom I thank for his courtesy in remaining here throughout the debate, after having spoken some time ago. These next words from the Cardinal may ease the hon. Gentleman's mind:
We want a classless society and a State where law prevails, a country developing democratic achievements based on private ownership correctly restricted by the interests of society and by justice.
Those are not the words of a Fascist reactionary. They are the words of one who has proved himself to be one of the greatest and most devoted leaders that any nation could wish to have.
Let us remember that it is eight years ago on Boxing Day that Cardinal Mindszenty was imprisoned and suffered the living martyrdom about which we know so much. It is not without significance that Boxing Day is the feast day of the first martyr of the Christian era, St. Stephen, the Patron of Hungary. I hope that by those few words I have given the lie to any suggestion that Cardinal Mindszenty is a Fascist reactionary.
I now wish to ask my right hon. Friend whether he could do something which would be of assistance, I think, to everyone. Could he have published a Blue Book, similar to what was arranged, I believe, with regard to Poland and Rumania, which would set out all the various declarations on the subject of Hungary which have been made since the beginning of the insurrection? It would be of great help to us all in dealing with these matters to have something in chronological order. In considering a subject like this, about which there is not the constant clash of party opinion to keep the details always in the forefront of our minds, it is difficult, after going away for a month, as we shall soon, to pick up all the points of importance when we come back. I believe that it would be most helpful if such a publication could be issued.
I do not propose to keep the House any longer, except to say a word of thanks to Austria for the magnificent neighbourliness which she has shown to Hungary in this terrible time. We do not always realise that Austria is a country which knows the jackboot of Russia, and knew it only very recently. Austria can see the Russian tanks patrolling the frontier from her own land, and she knows only too well how easy it would be for the Russians to enter and occupy her land again if they chose. Notwithstanding that, she has shown the most admirable courage to do what she has done for her poor, prostrate neighbour. I hope we shall not forget that and I rejoice that a great deal of the money which is available for the refugees will be spent in easing what must be an almost intolerable burden on the economy of such a small country.
We are all about to depart for the Christmas holidays, some of us to our comfortable homes, others to the winter sports and others to sunny climes. There will not be much sunshine or comfort in Hungary, but there is no need to give up hope. I believe that Hungary will fight on. No matter how difficult we think it is to act, we should keep on trying and never for one moment let up in our attempts to do our best to find a solution to her porblems. I believe that with the unquenchable spirit of the Hungarians and the determination of the rest of the world to make the United Nations really act, we shall, in the end, achieve a good solution in Hungary.

9.46 p.m.

Mr. W. T. Proctor: This has been a very interesting debate, and the House has found itself united in its sorrow at the present situation in Europe and in its desire to do something constructive. My own feeling is that our first need is that the Russians should follow exactly the course that has been followed by us in the matter of Egypt, and obey the United Nations.
The first real thing that could be done is to appeal for a cease-fire. What we want is an immediate ending of the killing in Hungary. No better message could go out to the Russian Government from the House of Commons than an appeal for that and an appeal to both sides—because there are two sides in this conflict—to try to settle this matter by something better than the gun.
Several disasters have happened to the world in the last few months. The most tragic is undoubtedly the tragedy in Hungary. Death has overtaken a number of thousands of people—Hungarians, Russians, Egyptians, British and Israelis. We can do nothing to restore those lives, but we can be very sorrowful that in this twentieth century that is the kind of society that we have on an international plane. We must devote ourselves to trying to create something better.
Great material damage has been done in Hungary, to the City of Budapest, and to the war-scarred cities in the Middle East. That can be repaired. If the world would only act as one great society, it would be possible for us quickly to restore all the material damage that has been done and to enjoy greater prosperity than we have ever seen. It is, however, necessary to recognise that we must get a world society in order to be able to do that.
One hon. Member opposite seemed to indicate that the only course open to us was to threaten Russia with an atomic war. I say that that would be a great disaster. We must, above everything else, try to make sure that humanity does not commit suicide in these present painful circumstances.
Having lived throughout the period from the Russian Revolution in 1917, I can remember the tremendous thrill that there was in this country when the Tsarist regime finished. Many great changes have taken place in Russia. We saw the rise of Stalin, and many of us spent the greater part of our political lives denouncing his dictatorship and all his works. I never dreamed that I should live to see the day when I should hear from Russian leaders the denunciation of Stalin and all that he stood for, more absolute than any that I had heard from anybody else in the world. I feel that we have not made the best of our opportunities to take advantage of these changes in Russia.
There is an immortal story of the time when Khrushchev denounced Stalin. It is said that when Khrushchev was speaking and detailing all the wicked things that Stalin had done someone in the audience sent up a question which read, "What were you doing when Stalin was doing all these things?" Khrushchev

read the question out and said, "Will the questioner come to the platform?" No one moved. In order to make certain that he was understood he moved to the front of the platform and read the question again, and again asked, "Will the questioner come to the platform?" No one moved, and Khrushchev said, "That is what I was doing when Stalin was doing all these things."
That story illustrates exactly the point that the Russian Communists and Communists in the satellite countries were in great danger of their lives during all those years, but what the Russian leaders forgot when they denounced Stalin was that there are Communists in the outside world who are under no compulsion and no fear and who yet gave Stalin the most enthusiastic support throughout that period. The denunciation of Stalin by Khrushchev undermined the position of every Communist in the free world. Outside, in the free countries, Communism is absolutely discredited, and Russian actions in Hungary have of course increased the horror which is felt.
What are we to do in these circumstances? War is not the solution. War is the immediate, complete suicide of all humanity. I feel that we must try to make contact with the Russian leaders. They are not in such a strong position as they were. It is a revelation to all of us that if the satellite countries were free tomorrow they would not be supporting the Communist regime in the same fashion as Stalin was able to get Communists throughout the world to support it. We should try to negotiate with the Russians in the present circumstances.
One great step which I believe would be a solution to many of our problems is the unity of Europe, and I do not exclude Russia from a united Europe. But we have to face the prospect of being ready to give up our own sovereignty to secure a bigger and more workable area than we have at present. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) suggested that we should negotiate on the basis of a neutral Germany. I would regard that as absolutely disastrous.
I believe that we should negotiate on the basis that there should be a united Germany inside a united Europe, which I think would be of less potential danger to Russia than a neutralised Germany


with the right to an army, an air force, a navy and all the paraphernalia of war on her own again. I think that the solution is E.D.C. with Britain inside it. It should be possible for us to ask the Russians to sit down with us and to ask them what forces there shall be in the whole of Europe, detailing where they should be and who should control them.
We should do everything we can to remove from the minds of the Russians the fear which they have of attack from outside. I believe that that is the only feasible explanation of the tragic action which they have committed in Hungary, namely, that they fear that it might be a base for the capitalist world. So we should try to convince the Russians that we have no evil intentions towards them and no aggressive intentions whatever.
I believe that one of the great tragedies of history was when Lenin decided that he would not accept the Social Democrats as representatives of the working class. As a result Hitler slipped between the Communists and the Social Democrats in Germany. One of the most disastrous decisions in history was to create Communist parties throughout the world. Today, however, they are discredited, and I would like my hon. Friends on this side of the House to consider whether it is not possible to negotiate with the Russians on the basis of the Social Democrats being recognised as the true representatives of the working class in Western Europe.
Whilst the Government have responsibility for making every effort to contact the Russians about a settlement—because all the problems of Europe could be settled in Moscow, provided that Moscow had the right spirit—this duty is shared by the Opposition. I have never been over-enthusiastic about the delegations that we have been sending to Russia. The Labour movement has just made a general decision not to send any delegations there. I believe, however, that this is just the time when we ought to send delegations to Russia. I beg my hon. Friends to consider whether or not we should not contact the Russian party on behalf of representatives of the working class, putting the humanitarian case for a change of policy on their part and for co-operative existence instead of competitive co-existence throughout the world.

9.58 p.m.

Mr. Humphrey Atkins: I must be brief at this time of night and, therefore, I hope that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Eccles (Mr. Proctor) will forgive me if I do not follow him into the outcome of the issues in Europe. Instead, I will confine myself to making one suggestion, touched upon by the Leader of the Opposition and one other hon. Gentleman opposite during the course of this debate.
During the last few weeks I have felt conscious, as I think everybody else in this country has, of two emotions about Hungary. One has been the admiration, which has been expressed far better than I can express it, of the magnificent struggle which the Hungarian people have put up. The second is the sense of frustration in that we would all like to do something to help, but do not know what to do.
It is there that I want to enlarge on a suggestion made already. In his opening remarks, my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary enumerated the ways in which this country is helping in a practical way the unfortunate victims of the troubles in Hungary. Where, with great respect, I must join issue with him is when he said that everything possible was being done. I do not agree. Of course, I agree that we have been generous in our acceptance of refugees, and that we have contributed money to be used both within and without this country to help the victims of those troubles, but I do not think that we have done nearly enough in that direction, by which I mean the direction of helping not the people who have escaped from terror, but those who are still suffering in Hungary.
I heard my right hon. and learned Friend say that the International Red Cross was distributing food parcels and other necessities to the people in Hungary. I was horrified to hear him say that there were only about 100 grown-up people—he mentioned the number of children, but I have forgotten it—who were receiving assistance from the International Red Cross. I have no idea how many people in Budapest or anywhere else need assistance, but I am sure it runs into hundreds of thousands.

Mr. Gaitskell: I think it was I who referred to the International Red Cross.
I am not sure whether the Foreign Secretary did or not. I mentioned the figure of 100,000. Perhaps I might help the hon. Gentleman by saying that, even so, that total is only about 4 per cent. of the population, so it is not very much.

Mr. Atkins: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I do not suppose that anybody in this country knows how many people there are in Hungary needing the very necessities of life. The Hungarian economy has been dislocated to a tremendous extent. We have heard of coal mines being flooded and transport being disorganised. It is clear that the unfortunate people who have not managed to escape stand in dire need of food and clothing, and I am sure that we could do more to ensure that help gets to them.
I do not mean that we should place at the disposal of the Hungarian Government a large sum of money as a gift. I mean that we should organise the arrival in Hungary of large quantities of goods in kind. It may be said that if we tried to do this either through the International Red Cross, or by joining with other nations, the goods might be refused entry when they arrived. I admit that that is a risk but it is a risk which we should take. The goods might also be admitted and then misappropriated; that is also a risk. The most hopeful prospect is that they might be admitted and distributed to people who need them. Whatever happened, we should have shown that we were prepared to do something to help the victims of the terror in Hungary.
If the affair could be well managed and publicity were given to it, then, to borrow the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris), when we came to knock at the door with our gifts, it would be very difficult for them to be refused entry, and the people in Hungary would take as much care as they could to ensure that they were not misappropriated.
Whatever the fate of any help that we managed to send, we should have shown that we were not going to sit idly by while people were in need but that this country, and others who, I am sure, would join with it, were capable of helping in an act which is nothing more than

Christian charity to people who are in great need and deserve what help we can give them.

10.4 p.m.

Mr. Aneurin Bevan: We are reaching, probably, the end of our discussions about foreign policy before the Christmas Recess. For my part— I expect that I am also expressing the views of the right hon. and learned Gentleman—I am heartily glad that it is so. If the Foreign Secretary gets the permission of the House, as I am sure he will, he will be winding up the debate with a great sense of relief.
There are some aspects of this subject which are not as melancholy as others. For example, those of us who are defenders of Parliamentary institutions can take comfort from the thought that dictatorships find it very difficult indeed to change from one form of Government to another, which must give a great sense of relief to the patriots on the other side of the House in their private agonies at the present time, for they know full well that if they find the burden too heavy for them it will be taken up by someone else who will be able to carry it on a little better and a little longer. That might reconcile hon. Members to the existence of the usual channels. That we sometimes find very irritating, because if the channels were blocked up we should have to fight our way through to some other form of government. So that is perhaps a minor satisfactory reflection that we can cling to this evening.
There is another aspect of it that I should like to mention before coming to the main subject. We were taken to task, as we have been on several occasions within the last few months, not only by newspapers but by hon. Members on the other side of the House, about the way in which the Opposition have conducted themselves in this crisis. We were taken to task again this evening, by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton). He said, "We pinned Ministers down." It was a sombre thought. I agree that we never pin them up. He said that we harass them and make it impossible for them to do their public duty. This comes very strange from hon. Members opposite —very, very strange indeed. I have been through many crises in this House and I have never yet complained of being


pinned down or harassed. The hon. Member must realise, when he reads the newspapers tomorrow morning, that another explanation has been given for what happened over the Suez crisis.
It has just been given by the Foreign Secretary of the French Government, in the French Chamber, and it adds another chapter to the serial story which unfolds itself in more and more melancholy fashion to hon. Members opposite. M. Pineau told the National Assembly today that the profound split in British Parliamentary and public opinion was the main reason for the abrupt Anglo-French decision to stop military operations in Suez. One could not have it from a better source. It is not only that they did not have a victory—I am sorry that the right hon. and gallant Member for Leicester, South-East (Captain Waterhouse) is not in his seat, because even that has been snatched from him now.
We now have it on the authority of the French Foreign Minister that the war in Egypt was concluded because of the insistence of Her Majesty's Opposition that it should be brought to an end. I suppose that we shall have some more revelations as time goes on. Unfortunately, the House will be in Recess when the next part of the serial story comes out. It may be that by the time we resume after the Recess we shall have the story almost complete. We shall not have it from the Prime Minister. He probably will not be here then, but we shall probably have before the end of it the full story about collusion. But now we know, and I hope that hon. Members opposite realise—

An Hon. Member: On a point of order. Is it in order, Mr. Speaker, for the right hon. Gentleman to conduct a debate on the Middle East?

Mr. Speaker: The Question before the House is, "That this House do now adjourn."

Mr. Bevan: If the hon. Member had heard the whole of the debate he would have learned that a number of hon. Members have taken up this point.

Mr. Peyton: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that when I was speaking rather more briefly on this topic than he has done, he observed very

sharply that what I was saying was wholly irrelevant. I hope that he will forgive me if I now say the same to him.

Mr. Bevan: On the contrary, if the hon. Member will study HANSARD tomorrow, he will find that he is mistaken. What I did say to him was that it was foolish to rebuke the Opposition for doing their duty by the House of Commons. Every time there have been crises in British history, Oppositions have been rebuked for the same reason, and if the Oppositions had been more frequently listened to then we should be better off. If Charles Fox had been listened to, we might still have had allies across the Atlantic.
However, I know that this is unpleasant to listen to. I am trying to put it as pleasantly as possible. Hon. Members opposite will now be able to realise that they did not come out of Egypt because of the United Nations, or because there was a United Nations Emergency Force, or for any of the other recondite reasons which have emerged from time to time from harassed hon. Members opposite, but because the Opposition would not agree to their staying. It was a split in British Parliamentary and English public opinion and, of course, very properly so.
One of the truths that has to be recognised is that in a society and democracy like Great Britain a country really cannot go to war unless it has the people behind it, and it cannot sustain a war unless it has the people behind it. Wars are no longer fought by mercenaries over the heads of the mass of the people and have not been so fought since the American Civil War. If we are to have a war, it has to be a popular war, and, of course, we would not have agreed with it.
It is quite apparent that if the Government entered upon an adventure of this sort without first making sure that they enjoyed the support of the vast mass of the population, it was bound to fail. It is, therefore, true, and I make no more of it, that it was the Opposition, the "sharp division of opinion," which made Her Majesty's Government sensitive to the Resolution of the United Nations and which, eventually, led to our having to pull out of Egypt.
I can see the pained expressions coming across the faces of hon. Members opposite, but I am bound to make one more reference to it, to put it on the record. The Lord Privy Seal, winding up the debate on 6th December, made a statement which is strictly relevant to Hungary. The charge has been made on several occasions that the Russians were given the excuse, or the cover, to do what they did in Hungary because of what we did in Egypt. To what extent what we did led them to do what they did will continue to be a matter of speculation.
The Lord Privy Seal made a defence which is one of the most extraordinary to which I have ever listened. I want to read it to the House. He said:
However, I should like to remind him"—
that is, my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker)—
that there is no connection whatever between the Russian assault on Hungary and our own action in Egypt.
I have again checked the speech which I made in the House on this subject, and to which he made no allusion in his speech, and in which I gave our own information, which was that long before we decided on our action "—
that is, the landing in Egypt—
or took our action … the Soviets had themselves decided, by a statement of their Foreign Minister and by the moving of their own tanks to subdue Hungary. I would tell the right hon. Gentleman that on 24th October the Soviet tanks intervened at 4.30 a.m. On 26th October Soviet tanks crossed the border from Russia—not from Roumania only, but also from Russia. I have checked from our own Intelligence that during the following days, by 29th October, there were no fewer than tour Soviet divisions in Hungary in addition to the two which we originally estimated."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th December, 1956; Vol. 561, c. 1575.]
So the charge is reversed. It is not now that Russia went into Hungary because we went into Egypt, but, rather, that we went into Egypt because we knew that the Russians were going into Hungary. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is the argument. Let me finish the argument. The situation is this. If we knew —and that is the Government's case here —that it was the Russian intention at that time not to pursue the policy of withdrawal that up till then they had announced and that the Russians intended to invade Hungary, then why did the Government not drive the Russians into

moral isolation by not taking the action in Egypt?
The Government cannot have it both ways. This has been the whole difficulty in which the House has found itself all the evening. The difficulty we are in is that we are, unfortunately, not able to condemn the Russians wholeheartedly in such round terms as we should like because of the blood guilt on our own hands in Egypt. In fact, this has been brought out in the debate. Is not the main case of hon. Members on both sides of the House that the only weapon we are left with to assist Hungary at present is that of morally isolating the Soviet Union? Is that not what has been said?
Most hon. Members have said that it is no use, of course, trying to liberate the Hungarians by war because no nation wants to be liberated today; they want to liberate themselves. They do not want to be liberated from outside because nations have had experience of being so liberated. Like Private Angelo, they do not want to be liberated again.

Mr. Osborne: What about the French, in 1944? They were glad to be liberated from outside.

Mr. Bevan: Hon. Members know very well that not a single one of them would rise in his place this evening and tell the House that, in his view, what we should do is to intervene militarily in Hungary for the purpose of rescuing the Hungarians.
Therefore, what we desire to do is to bring the full force of world opinion to bear upon the Russians because of their behaviour in Hungary, and the case I am making is that the full force of that public opinion has been muted, if not mutilated, by the fact that we are not able to speak in the same tones as other nations are able to employ. We have had it from the Lord Privy Seal himself that, with the knowledge that the Russians were going to do this, we took the action we did in Egypt. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Hungary?"] I am speaking about Hungary. That is the whole point. What the hon. Member wants to do is to start history where his own guilt ended, and not where it began.
Hon. Members on this side of the House, without any qualification whatsoever, condemn Russian policy in Hungary. We consider that it is wholly unforgivable.
I have always found it extremely difficult to understand how the Russian Communists reconciled their complete disregard for the welfare and life of the individual with even the tenets of their own philosophy. It has always seemed to me to he fundamental to the Socialist faith—and this is shared to some extent by Communism—that the individual member of society is frequently the victim of social circumstances; is not by any means the master of his fate in society; is born into under-privileged and under-educated classes; is born illiterate and is prevented becoming literate; is born poor, suffers because of his poverty and dies earlier because of it; and others are better off because they happen to be born of rich parents.
If this be the case—and it has always been central in Communism—I have never been able to understand why it is not accompanied by a sense of pity for the individual. I have never been able to reconcile the obscene conduct of the Russian Communists under Stalin—the assassinations, tortures, imprisonments and the impounding of helpless people in camps—with their philosophy, and I have never understood how the Russians could do so. The only explanation is that it is not part of their Communism at all, but of Byzantinism.

Mr. Osborne: Power corrupts Socialists, like everyone else.

Mr. Bevan: Power corrupts everybody, and we are trying to exempt hon. Members opposite from corruption. In fact, it looks as though they are going to lead pure lives for a long time.
It has always seemed to us that the conditions which now exist in Poland and Hungary were bound to arise. It is like seeing unfolded a film which one has already seen made. In 1944 and 1945 the Red Army went beyond its sociological frontiers. Where it conquered it stopped; but what it conquered it could not hold. It has always been clear that it could not hold it. Those Central European nations were too much a part of Europe, and had themselves—if the Russians want to use the words—been tainted by bourgeoisdom. Some of them inherited the institutions of Western democracy and, therefore, it was quite impossible for them permanently to be

reconciled to the kind of Communism that Stalin practised in Russia.
I have always held the view—and have expressed it more than once—that the time would come when the Russians would find that these areas were socially indigestible. It is not true to say that they have been held down by the Red Army. The Eastern European Communist countries which are most stable are those where there is no Red Army. The fact is that it is the existence of the Red Army which renders Communism intolerable in those nations where it exists.
It is the physical presence of Soviet troops that makes the people of Hungary light so bitterly; not only Communism, but the fact that their national pride and independence is affronted by the presence of Russian troops on their soil. We have only to look across Europe to see that there is greater stability in those Communist countries from which the Red Army has retreated than in those countries where the Red Army has stayed.
It seems to me that in those circumstances the best kind of service we can render to Hungary is to try to find a way by which this whole thing can be unlocked. Hon. Members opposite have inclined to be very defeatist these last few weeks. They think that they have come to the end of their glory. They say, "England is now a second-class nation. We have demonstrated to the world, by the futility of our conduct in Egypt, that the flame has passed from us and been taken up by someone else, but now we have to consider ourselves as a second-class Power and shelter under a higher wall than our own."
I do not take that view. I do not take the view that Great Britain is a second-class Power. On the contrary, I take the view that this country is a depository of probably more concentrated experience and skill than any other country in the world. I may be wrong, it may be that I am looking at the facts slightly askew, but I do not see that what is called the extinction of the British Empire is necessarily followed by the rise of another empire, that we are a second-class Power and now have to defer to first-class Powers, because the fact is there are no great Powers—there are only frustrated Powers.
We are not in a situation where great empires are quarrelling about spoil and


inheriting the corpses of those they have extinguished. It is not true. It is not correct. The great Powers of the world today, as they look at the armaments they have built up, find themselves hopelessly frustrated. If that be the case, what is the use of speaking about first-class, second-class, and third-class Powers? That is surely the wrong language to use. It does not comply with contemporary reality. What we have to seek are new ways of being great, new modes of pioneering, new fashions of thought, new means of inspiring and igniting the minds of mankind. We can do so.
That is why I rather deplored the barren speech we had from the Foreign Secretary, at least that part towards the end, this afternoon. He talked as though we could make no general suggestions about settling the European situation because that might appear as though we were giving prizes to the Russians for being wrong. In other words, he said, "Why should we think of bartering anything at all in Europe in exchange for Russian retirement from the Eastern States?" I have been convinced for some time that a great deal of Russian opinion has been moving in this direction. It is fairly obvious from the situation in Poland that there is no decision in Russia to over-run all the satellites by armed force if they do not give in to her.
The Polish settlement itself is evidence, if not of uncertainty in the Soviet Union, at least of no monolithic attitude towards all the satellites. When I was in Moscow, some years ago, I said to some of the Soviet leaders that I thought that their policy of holding down the Eastern European States would not pay dividends either in terms of safety or in terms of influence.
The cordon sanitaire that Stalin created around himself becomes increasingly irrelevant when one considers modern weapons and that one no longer has to deal with the possibility of massed marching armies, but projectiles and heavy bombers. Therefore, the cordon sanitaire, as a cushion between Russia and the rest of the world, has now become irrelevant. If this be true, and if it is also true, as it is, that the Russians are bound to meet increasing embarrassment in those areas, the essence of diplomatic wisdom is to find it possible for them to do so as quickly as possible.
It is no use, therefore, saying that we must not bargain. Of course we must. I would be delighted, indeed I would be proud, if the initiative came from here. If it does not come from here, it will come from somewhere, and, once more, we shall be reacting to somebody else's initiative instead of making them react to our initiative.
For example, I believe that the first new idea which will emerge from this reassessment of Suez is not necessarily the same thing as Prime Minister Nehru has been advancing—the policy of neutralisation—but another conception which might be called the policy of disinvolvement, the policy of disengaging. Up till the Suez crisis we were building up our alliances right up to the Russian threshold, in Europe and in the Middle East, and the nearer we reached her, or the nearer she reached us—because it was a reciprocal operation—the more and more points of friction we created.
What is infinitely more serious is that we tried to build our forward positions in those parts of the world which are most politically, economically and socially unstable. That is obviously a foolish thing to do, because, as the populations in those areas are disturbed by a variety of influences, some coming from us and some coming from the Russians, naturally those forward positions become uncertain and our own prestige becomes involved.
Thus the Bagdad Pact involved a complete change of relationships in the Middle East and—here I may be on controversial ground—our attempts over four or five years to build an armed Western Germany into N.A.T.O., in my view, produced an area of disturbance, of fear, of social dislocation, where we ought to have been building up serenity and stability.
What I am asking the Government to do is to see whether we can approach this problem from a new angle, not to push the cold war up against each other but to try to establish cool areas between each other, to try to sec whether it is possible for the great Powers to agree that there shall be nations who would have to agree about this themselves quite independently. We should not impose it upon them. I should imagine that there are a number of nations now which would rather have the tranquillity of disinvolvment than have the fear of being involved.
It seems to me that the Central European countries are just the areas where we can start. It has been mentioned by Shepilov, it has been blurted out by Khruschev. Let us find out how much there is in it. Let us explore how far the Russians are prepared to go in this matter. Let us assume that not only is Russian policy malignant, but, also, that it might be stupid, not only that the Russians have misbehaved themselves in Hungary but that they might not have understood the Hungarian situation. Whenever I meet Russian representatives, the thing that impresses me about them is not their infallibility, not their wide knowledge, but their sheer ignorance of what is happening in other parts of the world.
It is now clear that they were ignorant of what was happening in nations on their own doorstep. It is quite clear that they did not for one moment estimate the extent to which their own conduct had undermined their influence and prestige in Hungary. They could not possibly have weighed the extent to which Hungarians would resent them if they went on as they had been doing.
What does it all add up to? It does not add up to the apocalyptic conclusion that we are dealing with someone who is 100 per cent. evil, against whom we are to pit our policies, so that the angels of light are fighting the angels of darkness. All history would be simpler if it were always merely a quarrel between right and wrong. Unfortunately, quite often it is a quarrel between two sets of rights.
I would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues now to take the initiative in this matter, to see whether it is not possible for us to "feel out" the Russians, by any means they like, either through N.A.T.O. or the United Nations, or by any other means, to discover whether the Russians are not now prepared to come to terms with us that would be satisfactory and honourable to both countries and contribute to the peace of the world.

10.37 p.m.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I ask the leave of the House to speak again. After 74 Foreign Office Questions being on the Order Paper today and after having made the opening speech in this debate, I am not at all sure that if permission were refused I should be greatly disturbed.
However, I think it can be said that we have had no great party controversy during this debate, at all events, not on the scale of other debates during the past few weeks. The right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) did towards the end of his speech try to revive the flickering flame, to use the bellows to warm things up to a sort of Yuletide atmosphere; but I am not quite certain that even he succeeded. He did give us a lecture on the duties of Government in paying attention to the Opposition. I do not recollect that during the years 1945 to 1950 he really paid so much respect himself to that duty. In these matters, example is better than precept, and some of us on this side remember what happened during those years.

Mr. Bevan: Attention, but hardly ever respect.

Mr. Lloyd: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman ever paid attention or respect. And I am not sure that we shall do very much better either.
He did say that he would seek to liberate us from the corruption of power. I seem to remember another prophecy he made, I think, in the year 1949 or 1950, the prophecy that never again would there be another Tory Government. Really, his prophecies do not disturb us perhaps as much as he would wish.
He made a reference to the situation in Egypt and the question of a connection between our action there and what happened in Hungary. That might perhaps lead one into an area of controversy, and I can only say what my own belief is upon that matter. I do not believe that, once the Nagy Government had declared for neutrality, for withdrawal from the Warsaw Pact, and for free elections, there was any chance of their ever being preserved from the fate which met them. I do not believe that anything which was happening anywhere else in the rest of the globe had any effect upon that consequence.
I turn to some of the points which were raised during the course of the debate. The right hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) asked if I could give him some figure about the number of deportees. The best that I can give him is that the number runs into some thousands.
The Leader of the Opposition asked about Anna Kethly addressing the General Assembly of the United Nations. My information is that a resolution would be required for that to be possible. There is the point about the precedent that it might involve. I understand that there is some support from at least two countries for that, and as far as we are concerned we certainly would have no objection to that happening. Indeed, we would give it our support. The right hon. Gentleman's second point concerned the report to the United Nations by diplomatic representatives in Budapest. That idea had already occurred to us, and I would prefer if the right hon. Gentleman would leave it at that for the moment.
He raised the question of assistance for refugees in Austria. We have already contributed to the Secretary-General's fund—not very much I think, some £15,000—but one of the disappointing facts is that only two other countries have followed our example. The United States and Canada are the only two other countries who have contributed to the Secretary-General's fund.
We have also been able to give some small assistance to the Austrian Government, but one must face the fact that the largest help is that which comes from the Lord Mayor's Fund, one-third of which is available. The Lord Mayor has already sent £150,000 to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Austria.
The suggestion was made that we should take some bold initiative and contribute large sums to the International Red Cross for its programme in Hungary. We are helping by our contributions to the British Red Cross and by the funds which have been raised, but I will certainly consider the possibility of further help so that the programme does not suffer.
A suggestion came from another hon. Member regarding a reconstruction programme, and the example of U.N.R.R.A, was put forward. It is rather too early for us to think in terms of another U.N.R.R.A. programme, because I do not think the conditions yet exist in Hungary in which it would be possible to carry through such a programme, and I am not at all certain that that would be accepted there by the powers that be.
The Leader of the Opposition mentioned the question of doctors. My right

hon. and gallant Friend the Home Secretary will examine that with the Minister of Health. I think that we shall be broadly sympathetic to the view put forward by the right hon. Gentleman.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) mentioned the question of broadcasting. I want to say again that there is no question of reducing the broadcasts of the B.B.C. to the satellite countries. In fact, over the past few weeks there has been a slight increase in the broadcasts to Hungary. I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend that although it may be possible to make economies elsewhere with regard to the overseas services of the B.B.C., it would be wrong to make them in broadcasts to that part of Europe.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wells (Lieut.-Commander May-don) spoke of the misunderstanding under which certain of the refugees have come to this country during the past few weeks. We have been into that matter and I think it is quite true that some were led to believe that by coming here they could go on almost at once automatically to the United States of America. That misapprehension was not due to anything that we have said. We are doing our best to correct that idea, because the United States, as I have said earlier, is giving preference to the refugees coming direct from Austria.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris) suggested that a Blue Book should be published dealing with the chronology and statements on these matters. I will certainly consider that. His points of detail will receive attention.
I come now to what I consider the most interesting part of the debate. It does not detract in any way from the sympathy which we feel about what has happened in Hungary and the desire of all sides of the House to do everything that we can to alleviate the lot of Hungarians in Hungary and those who are refugees. Although what I am now going to say does not in any way detract from that desire, that real feeling which is the feeling of the British House of Commons, I think that, for us, the most interesting part of the debate has been the look into the future to attempt to decide what policies we should seek to adopt.
Her Majesty's Government have repeatedly put forward plans designed to procure a settlement of the German question and thus greater stability in Central Europe. The Prime Minister took a large part in this at the Berlin Conference in 1954 and the Geneva Conference in 1955, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer did so at the second Geneva Conference in 1955. Her Majesty's Government have repeatedly taken the initiative in putting forward plans designed to procure a settlement in Europe. I gave a quite false impression in my opening speech if hon. Members thought that we were going to confine our activities simply to the examination of the proposals put forward either by the Soviet Union or by the United States.
I think that the timing of each initiative must be left to the Government of the day in consultation with their allies, and I am not going tonight to commit Her Majesty's Government to any sort of timetable in this matter. I agree, however, with much of what has been said about the choices which lie before us. In my opening speech, I emphasised the importance of not undermining the position of the United Nations. I felt that might be a thought which would receive some support from the other side of the House.
I thought that, because of recent events, the United Nations had acquired new authority, and I was anxious for an opportunity for that authority to be tested in the Hungarian situation. I was not being cynical with regard to that. I felt that, perhaps because of what we had done, it might be said that the United Nations had received new authority. I thought that, before one started negotiating away the position, it was important that the Soviet Union should be faced quite straight with its disobedience to the mass of Resolutions of the United Nations. However, I agree that, although that is one side of the matter, that does not mean that we should abstain from the contemplation of initiatives outside the United Nations.
I think that the discussion today about developments in the post-Stalin era has been extremely interesting. I thought that there were indications earlier in the year, arising out of internal developments in the Soviet Union, of a certain move towards a more liberal structure of

society within the Soviet Union. I think there was a debate in July in which the Prime Minister indicated some of the respects in which that was taking place.
I think that we got certain evidence of reforms in their judicial procedures. Confessions were no longer to be used in evidence. There was the right to change employment. There was the right to own property. There was the right to talk more freely with foreigners. There was the development of certain personal freedoms. There was the development of a new professional class. All these things indicated a certain movement in the structure of society in the Soviet Union which gave hope of a more general liberalisation.
It was only the beginning. There was only some evidence that that was taking place, and there was no evidence at all that it was extending to political thought. It was confined to other matters. Nevertheless, I think that it gave one ground for greater expectations. I felt, as I believe many people felt, that that would have its effect in turn upon the satellites, that it was impossible to have that sort of development within the Soviet Union without its having a corresponding effect upon developments within the satellites. Six months or so ago one thought that the auguries for a gradual détente were good.
One matter which one did not take sufficiently into account at that time was the consequence of Soviet meddling in the Middle East and its decision more than a year ago to sell arms to Egypt, the progressive demonstrations of its intentions to make trouble in that area, its arming of Syria, etc. All that was probably a factor, a danger, which was not sufficiently realised. It was of a much greater extent than we had thought, and without doubt that has been one of the major causes of the setback to the improvement in international relations which six or nine months ago we felt we were entitled to expect. It was that Soviet meddling, mischief making, trouble making in the Middle East which produced the situation in which the Prime Minister of Egypt acted as he did and the Government of Israel acted as they did.
The other factor which could not have been foreseen and which has had an impact on the debate has been that the development in the satellites took place


rather more quickly than had been expected or foreseen, that instead of there being a gradual process towards liberalisation, freedom and self-determination, as soon as there came signs of a change in the Soviet Union, the satellites began very quickly to desire to cast off the oppression which they had borne until then.
In Poland it was done one way, in Hungary, owing to the circumstances to which reference has already been made—it may be personalities, it may be the actual fact that a particular incident was suddenly aroused into something worse than intended—that process has resulted in the tragedy that we have all seen. There has been this setback due to those two factors, but that is no reason for longterm pessimism.
I believe that the political weakness of Soviet control of the satellites has been proved. Its military strength is as great as ever. I am not much impressed by the argument about its strategic weakness having been shown up. We would make a great mistake if we underestimated the military strength of the Soviet Union at the present time. In war, however reluctant populations are to conform, they usually do so if there is sufficient military power at hand. We should make a great mistake if we believed that Soviet military strength had been greatly sapped by what has happened. Nevertheless, I believe that its political strength has been enormously weakened.
Some very pointed questions were asked about what would happen if we came into a phase of prolonged guerrilla warfare and about who would be willing to supply arms and who would not. I believe that further progress is still pos-

sible, but I am absolutely certain that the one thing which it would be folly to do would be to dismantle the N.A.T.O. alliance or N.A.T.O. defence at the present time. If we were to do that, or be manœuvred into something which would result in the dismantling of N.A.T.O., we should be dismantling the structure which has produced the present position in which, on the whole, Western Europe is more secure than it has ever been before and the Soviet Union is weaker in Europe than it has ever been before.
One error we must avoid is believing a solution lies in dismantling the N.A.T.O. alliance and discarding the policy which has checked the Soviet advance and helped to preserve the European desire for liberty.
I say again that it does not rule out further initiatives. Her Majesty's Government will certainly bear in mind the opinions which have been expressed, in what I believe has been a very thoughtful and helpful debate, about what are the possible and desirable initiatives.

Mr. J. B. Godber: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS

Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Milford Haven [copy laid before the House, 12th December], approved.—[Mr. Deedes.]

UNITED NATIONS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Godber]

10.55 p.m.

Mr. Grime Finlay: After the debate to which we have just listened, it is in a spirit of deep humility that I rise to debate the many-dimensioned and mondial issues connected with strengthening the United Nations. This evening's debate on the torture of Hungary will, I think, only more deeply impress upon all of us the essential conditions which are precedent to a civilised world order. These were very clearly stipulated last Sunday in an eminent article in the Sunday Times by Professor Gilbert Murray. First, he said, there must be a general willingness to obey the law; and secondly, he said, there must be the absence of any one Power ambitious enough and strong enough to wreck it.
In regarding world problems, I think we must recognise that the Soviet Union is not generally willing to obey the law and is, moreover, strong enough either to ignore it or to wreck it. We must therefore, I think, shape our attitude towards world institutions accordingly and realise that there are severe limitations imposed upon the effectiveness of the United Nations. Any other course is merely dangerous escapism. That, of course, is not to say that we should do nothing at all. There are certain steps which we should take, and should do all we can to encourage, in strengthening the United Nations.
There has been much talk in recent times about teeth—better and sharper teeth—for the United Nations. Teeth are certainly important; indeed, they are essential. But much more significant, I submit, are the impartial principles on the basis of which any such teeth are to be applied. If the United Nations is to have real moral force, its decisions must be just decisions.
Anyone will agree in this matter, I think, that whatever else they may be, the decisions of the Security Council and of the General Assembly are not judicial decisions. In no sense are they the decisions of some great mondial supreme court. No evidence is called, examined and cross-examined, no authorities or precedents are cited. No reasoned judg-

ment, based upon accepted judicial principles, is delivered by judges.
On the contrary, the decisions are made from a very mixed assortment of motives of political expediency. Some nations plainly regard their own interests as top priority. Racial, economic and religious blocs are found to support those interests and bargains are reached between the groups. Still other nations are content or have, perforce, to follow in the orbit of some major nation of which they are the satellites. There is something distinctly unseemly, moreover, and I would almost say indecent, in nations which have consistently broken the spirit of the United Nations Charter, set at naught its Resolutions and defied their obligations under international treaties, taking part in the proceedings of the United Nations and exercising their vote and their membership against other nations.
It should be obvious that if the Assembly is really to count as representing the conscience of the civilised world, its decisions should be reached impartially and on the basis of civilised judicial principles. A more judicial instrument is called for, and when Charter revision is considered this year disqualifications for members infringing the code should be introduced. Indeed, it should be considered whether they should not be expelled altogether.
Unfortunately, public international law is still a far from complete code, although considerable progress has been made towards this development. The judgments of the International Court are not yet enforceable and even if they were it is difficult to see what the means of enforcement would be in many cases, short of armed conflict. I need only recall the two unfortunate experiences of the Corfu judgment and the recourse to the Court in respect of the nationalisation of the oil interests by the Government of Iran. In the Corfu judgment, the British Government got judgment for over £800,000 in respect of the lives of our seamen and the loss of our destroyers in the Corfu Channel, not one penny of which has been recovered. If one applies that situation to our domestic procedure in relation to court judgments, we know that one can go and put the bailiffs in and one can get execution. But one cannot put in the bailiffs when the Government of Albania are concerned, and distrain on their chattels and pro-


perty. In fact, there is nothing short of armed action by which one can enforce justice.
Many members of the United Nations organisation even refuse to accept as compulsory the judgment of the International Court, thereby exposing either their bad faith or their lack of confidence in its machinery. I think the first task of the International Law Commission must be to extend its work in completing and restating the code of international law. This, I think, should include the law as to international waterways, and the rights of transit through them, and steps should be taken to make compulsory the jurisdiction of the public International Court.
Turning to the question of the Charter and amendment of it, I come to the definition of "aggression." The International Law Commission has for some years past been trying to get a clearer definition of that expression, but little advance has been made, due to the deep divisions of opinion. We all probably think that we have a pretty good idea of when one country has committed an aggression upon another. We think that in terms of common sense. But some members think that a clearer definition would only encourage the evil which it was intended to prevent. Others are divided regarding the type of definition to be adopted, and a special committee has, I understand, been considering these matters exclusively.
What I have in mind, however, is not a comprehensive and exclusive definition of aggression but the laying down of a series of considerations which should be taken into account before it is decided that an aggression has been committed. In view of recent events which have taken place in the Middle East, these considerations could, I suggest, clearly include the following factors: previous threats; hostile military or economic dispositions: previous record of aggressions; declarations as to a state of war between the parties. All those four factors are guides which could enable a court, exercising its mind judicially, to reach a conclusion.
Another obvious common-sense consideration, if one wants to weigh this question of aggression, is the relevant military strengths of the nations concerned. It is in the highest degree unlikely that a weak nation will be guilty of aggression against a strong nation.
While principles of this kind should not be conclusive, they should afford a guide in enabling a decision to be reached on the issues of aggression or of self-defence. I should be interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary has to say in reply. Obviously, considerable complexities are involved, and there are many forms of preparation, practice and penetration which can cover aggression.
It is normally regarded as a virtue, I should have thought, for the law to be clear. Very often in this House we define crimes, and I do not remember hearing the Law Officers of the Crown say that that enables a potential criminal more easily to cloak his evil desires. I think that we have to try to do something about this.
As to sharper teeth, the absolute condition precedent is that the principles of their application must be sound before they are supplied. Only if that requirement is satisfied should we aim at the following improvements.
First, we want more rapid and judicial machinery for determining an aggression, otherwise the situation may be changed so rapidly that it is irretrievable save at the cost of a major war. Of course, such machinery involves very considerable difficulties. For example, it is impossible to have a satisfactory interim procedure upon the lines of our English interim injunction procedure. Rights of appeal have to go by the board because of the inevitable delay involved.
What should this judicial instrument for deciding aggression be? I suggest that we want something in the nature of a security court, and that it should be composed and presided over by international jurists of the highest learning and the most exceptional integrity that we can find. They should be supported by military, naval and air assessors, and they should have as well a staff of military observers who should have at their disposal all possible air facilities which would enable them to reconnoitre any dispositions which had a bearing on the question of aggression.
Secondly, I submit that an effective standing force should be immediately available, and I stress "immediately." We know that for various reasons those Articles of the Charter providing for instantly available armed forces have not


been fulfilled, and, in particular, that national air force contingents have not been provided under Article 45. If possible, steps should be taken to remedy that. Properly equipped troops, perhaps two divisions of all arms, should be established before the crisis occurs and not weeks after, as in the case of the Middle East.
Those troops should receive practice and training in United Nations police and liaison duties and be instantly available. Military training manuals ought to have some new chapters written upon the tactics and methods of effective intervention. The troops should be provided with their own transport and their own air arm, and should not have to rely upon the disputants themselves for those facilities, as has been the case in the Middle East. Can one imagine anything more derogatory to the dignity and effectiveness of any police force than having to rely upon those who are the parties to the dispute for their transport? That is something which must be put right.
If it is not possible to raise the necessary personnel by direct recruitment to the United Nations organisation, which is the best course, or by seconding from national forces, then it should be the responsibility of members to earmark certain of their forces for the purposes of United Nations duties, and they should receive training in them, and carry out joint exercises. I want to see the cohesion and the discipline of these forces effectively arranged, and they should be in no way inferior to national contingents.
I doubt very much whether, as things are organised at present in the Middle East, the disciplinary arrangements under General Burns are effective. We shall have to see, but I doubt whether they are. I feel that in training, in discipline and in turn-out the United Nations should seek to set an absolutely exceptional example and build up an outstanding type of esprit de corps quite its own.
History provides many examples of efficient mercenary forces, whether it be the Swiss or the Scots in mediaeval times. In the present time, what about the Brigade of Gurkhas, or the French Foreign Legion? We do not need to have purely national contingents to show good fighting qualities. We can look to

some of these examples for those qualities. In addition, the United Nations forces will have an extra opportunity of acting in accordance with the highest international ideals.
As things are ordered at present I do not think that those forces can hope to serve anything more than a strictly limited purpose. They can act only as a police force by consent of the disputants, as in the Middle East, or as a military force against a small and relatively weak opponent. I am quite certain that in existing circumstances they could not tackle a heavily armed world Power. In these matters we must be patient and content with progress which is limited, but which, on the other hand, is real progress. We must not expect too much but try to make a start.
Today the United Nations is being put to a real test. The world is watching how it carries out its duties in supervising the withdrawal of the various forces and securing freedom of transit in the Suez Canal. I am certain all of us devoutly hope we are going to learn the lessons of the past anxious months, and that we shall, out of these small beginnings, see a system emerge more effectively to preserve the peace of the world.

11.12 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Boyd: If I understood him correctly, I certainly agreed with the last part of the speech of the hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Finlay) about the building up of a United Nations police force. I shall not repeat what he said.
During the early part of his speech I had what must be an unusual feeling for an hon. Member on this side of the House about an hon. Member opposite, that he was being a great deal too idealistic and perfectionist in his ideas of how the United Nations ought to work and how it ought to be changed. Personally I welcome the realistic approach of the United Nations towards international political parties, growing like national parties, representing interests, not just points of view, based on realities and solid, common interests, which bind groups of nations together.
I should have thought that the fact that the members of our Commonwealth are often able to work together is a very good thing. It is also good that India is able to lead a party of its own, a


group of nations which is often able to mediate between the two major blocs of Powers. I should have thought that the United Nations is far more likely to be successful if it works in the existing setup, in the real world, with a realistic relationship to what is going on. I should not object to that. I do not agree with the idea of trying to turn the United Nations machinery into a judicial set-up. There is already an International Court at The Hague, to which legal issues can be referred, and indeed Britain often does refer disputes of that kind to that Court.
The hon. Member suggested that members of the United Nations which misbehaved should be expelled. Surely if that were the case we should all be expelled eventually. No human being is perfect, and sooner or later every human being would be expelled from an organisation, if expulsion were the penalty for misbehaviour. We should all help the police in catching a law breaker even though a nation assisting the police had misbehaved in the past or might do so in future. To get peace, or to try to get it, all available resources have to be used to stop the law breaker when breaking the law occurs.
I think that it would probably be useful to pursue the discussions which the hon. Gentleman suggests should be held in an effort to define aggression. He had some useful things to suggest, but I do say that it has to be made clear that provocation is not an excuse for aggression, although that is not always accepted today. I agree that the sort of rule of thumb which is useful is that of an attack by a large Power on a small one. But another thing which can help is to find out which side advances, because the aggressor will have chosen the time favourable to himself, and will be reasonably certain to be able to get the better of the fight in the earlier stages. Of course, what will happen later is where the aggressor's calculations may go wrong.
I would conclude by saying that I think it is a pity to spend too much time talking of the form of the Charter. Too many people seem to think too readily that there are deficiencies and defects in the Charter as it exists today. Let us examine ways and means of improving it; and in doing that, I think that we shall find the merits of the Charter as it stands. Let us use the machinery of the United Nations

as it exists; let us learn to make the best use of the Charter and the organisation that we can.

11.17 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. David Ormsby-Gore): The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Boyd) described the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Finlay) as too idealistic; I hope that neither hon. Gentleman will misunderstand me if I say that I thought it too legalistic. For example, I thought that the idea of a court, with military assessors, was going rather far, because by the time that the court had sat and heard the views of those assessors the aggressor would have gone a long way. However, I thought that his idea of a United Nations armed force was interesting, but I cannot go into detail about that tonight.
The other interesting part of his speech—and the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West also referred to it—was the definition of aggression. I have already spoken on that subject in a former Adjournment debate, and I dealt with it at some length during Question Time last week; but it is worth going into in some detail.
The real trouble is that the attempt to define aggression—and it has not been much encouraged by Her Majesty's Government—has been going on at the United Nations since 1951. There has been a very wide divergence of views as to the type and scope of a satisfactory definition. Some member States have been in favour of a very general formula. Others have pressed for an exhaustive and detailed definition which would list as many manifestations of aggression as possible. Others again have favoured a "mixed" definition, which would include the other two varieties. There have also been arguments as to whether the definition should include economic aggression, ideological aggression, and indirect aggression. It has even been suggested that any definition should be wide enough to include any sort of interference in the internal affairs of another State.
As a result of these seemingly endless discussions, member States are coming more and more to share our view, which is that it is not possible to reach a definition which will serve all practical purposes, and that a defective definition


might very well be dangerous. When we look at the various types of definition which have been put forward we find difficulties in each case. A general definition could leave such an important point as self-defence unelaborated, while, on the other hand, a definition which enumerated various types of aggression would appear to single out certain kinds of aggression for special emphasis. In a word, a general definition would almost certainly be too wide, while a more detailed definition would inevitably leave gaps.
I have mentioned this at some length because I should like to make it clear that it is not merely our traditional empirical approach which makes us chary of attempts to define aggression. We in fact remain very doubtful whether it is possible to find a satisfactory definition covering all those cases which are truly in the nature of aggression without at the same time prejudicing necessary measures which might have to be taken in order to resist aggression.
There is a real danger, we feel, that a definition could be distorted by would-be aggressors who could take advantage of loopholes. Thus the innocent might be trapped while the aggressors were allowed to escape.
Another point that was raised by my hon. Friend—

Mr. Eric Fletcher: rose —

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I am sorry not to give way, but I have not got much time. I must deal with the points which have already been raised.
Many people have approached the question of the strengthening of the United Nations primarily from a legal point of view, by revision of the Charter, by agreement on the definition of aggression, etc. I think, however, that we should all agree that the best way of strengthening the organisation would be to find a means of giving it at least some of the teeth that those who drafted the Charter in San Francisco in 1945 contemplated that it should have.
The Prime Minister said, on 17th November:
If the result of our action"—
in Egypt—
is to equip the United Nations with effective means to enforce its resolutions, then we

shall be well rewarded. More important still, the United Nations would then emerge strengthened from the test which it is now undergoing.
There is no need for me to rehearse here how Soviet opposition frustrated the efforts that were made, shortly after the founding of the United Nations, to give effect to the provisions of Chapter VII of the Charter, which concerned the organisation of a force to be at the disposal of the Security Council; nor need I do more than refer in passing to what happened over Korea and to the establishment of the "Uniting for Peace" procedure.
Attempts under the machinery set up thereby to organise arrangements for an armed force to be at the disposal of the United Nations proved equally abortive, though that was not for want of support on the part of Her Majesty's Government. The United Nations Emergency Force is in being in Egypt, and many traditionally neutral countries, such as Switzerland, Sweden and India, have helped to make it a reality. We do not yet know whether that force will be successful, though we all hope it will be.
The question is whether it can give us some indication of the manner in which we might organise a permanent United Nations force which could be readily on call. The difficulties in the way of establishing such a force are, of course, formidable, but in the present world situation it seems worth trying.
We are, therefore, considering whether there are any practical proposals that we can put forward for the organisation of a readily available force in a form which would be acceptable to the majority of the members of the United Nations. It is not, of course, possible at this stage to give any details of the way in which our minds are working. The point is that a study has been put in hand. The issues which is exposes will need very careful consideration, and consultation with our friends will also be necessary before we can come forward with public proposals.
I am afraid that I have had time to answer only the two main points which my hon. Friend raised—the question of the definition of aggression, and the possibilities of setting up some kind of permanent force. I think I have been able to indicate what our point of view is on both those main topics.

11.24 p.m.

Mr. Stan Awbery: I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Finlay) that the time has come when the United Nations organisation should be revised. We have had it in existence now since 1945, and very little has been done to strengthen it. In the light of the experiences of the past few months, the Government should take note of what the hon. Member for Epping has said regarding the necessity for the revision of the Charter, particularly having regard to some of the arguments which we have heard in the House this evening.
Some hon. Members opposite have argued against the United Nations, saying definitely that it is of no use. I am not of that opinion. I believe its organisation could be revised, and that it could be used for our—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock.